date:20051217




Kevin, Blain-while I am not the Moderator I would like to remind you guys that according to the Holy Spirit we are suppose to be subject to authority-Here Perry is that authority.




- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 10:53:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment **


Can you print the entire context, please? 
Blainerb


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Izzy's sex lifeHi Izzy, I was looking through some of my old e-mails and came upon one with the above subject title--jus' thought I'd let you know I am still waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . .Blainerb[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:03:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sinceyou have been asked to stop stirring the pot
And some subjects have been identified as OFF LIMITS
I have declined to comment
But since you guys can not leave it alone

I was refering to your PRIVATE email off list to a member of this list stating you were
"waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . ."

First of all, I don't recall writing to anyone in private. If I did, it may have been becauseI had not noticed it was private. Who was it that got the letter in private, Kevin? Are you the one? It must have been you, or Dean--both of you have brought this up--and if it was private why did you post it contrary to the rules?.

Secondly, I vaguely remember making that comment, but I don't recall the context in whichI made it. Can you print the entire context, please? 
Blainerb
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud




cd: If one would read and study John 1: 9-it would help the conclusion of this debate. The light is now giving to ALL men and Gods laws are written in the hearts of ALL men therefore they will have no excuse for rejection of Christ nor breaking the Law-That is knowledge of God but to have salvation God must "speak" to man. Similar to there being no excuse as nature itself shows the works of God-Yet salvation is in the drawing. Same with preaching the Gospel-to some it is the power of salvation and to the foolish it is unto a harder eternal judgement. The bible states that to mock the gospel ( or the one preaching that gospel) leads to heavier chainsthrough outeternity. Brothers and Sister in Christ don't think nothing is being accomplished by our works here on TT because one way or the others accountability will be giving-as God wants some peoples sins to be to the uttermost for punishment to the uttermost. By that same token we should use extreme caution with our words-which I find myself to fall short on-and now 
make a renewed effort to focus on this goal.




- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 12:03:13 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud



On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:49:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:






Ithink I agree with this. 

I hope you do because it is Jesus who said "I am the Way, the Truth  the Life, no man comes to the Father BUT by Me" (John 14:6) 

Since your thinking is not identical to scritpure, I am not sure what is meant by you with the words "through Christ" and so "I think I agree .."

This is ridiculous JD, what I mean is exactly what John 14:6 says without any added anything. How much more plain can that be?

I believe that Philip 2:12-13 reveals a point of truth for all men. God is at work in us all. But we still have choices, which you you, as well. So I am not sure why you wrote the above.

Because God is NOT at work in ALL men.He is at work in those who have 'by faith' received Christ along with the indwelling Holy Spirit... who the world CAN NOT receive.(John 14:17) 

So, unregenerated man can receive Christ without the help of the Father, he can give good gifts, he can even live a good enough life to avoid the judgment of God (ala Nineveh) but he can't do anything else? 

No unregenerate man can not receive Christ aside from being drawn
by the Father (John 6:44). The unregenerate can receive God's temporal blessings ie: it rains on both just and unjust etc. and No he can not live a good enough life to avoid the judgment. Nineveh temporarily repented remember? Later on they reneged and were destroyed anyway.

Yes He is. No man comes to the son except the Father draws him. God is concerned that all come to Christ. I see no limitations in Philip 2:12,13. Is this draw of God a farced event in the life of the person? No. 

Don't you believe Ephesians 2:1, 2? You can't have God and the spirit of this world working in you at the same time. Double minded ppl receive nothing from God (James 1:8).

This is just plain wrong, in view of scripture. 

No it isn't JD. Everything I am writing is exactly what scripture is saying and since the scriptures are not contradictory you need to reconcile these in your own mind.

While you are busy quoting Eph 2:1,2, why not incorporate Eph 4:20-24 into the mix , as well. That passage clearly presents both the old and the new at work within man AT THE SAME TIME. ... let's not forget Romans 7:25.

The man in Romans 7 wanted to do things God's way and so does the person in Eph 4:21 that is "Assuming that you have really heard Him and been taught by Him... strip yourselves of your former nature (put off and discard your old unrenewed self) which characterized your previous manner of life and becomes corrupt through lusts and desires that spring from delusion"- So this person has made a clear
choice and is not "of two opinions or of two minds"The ppl Paul writes to in Philip 2:12,13 are believers in the church at Philippi.

So what. When you associate John 3:21 with the Philip 2 passage, you can see that there is a sense in which God is at work within us all.Old Testament writersspeak of the "still small voice within." That would be GOD.Such an explanation offers the simplest explanation ofthe fact that God draws the sinner to Christ. 

You mean an old testament prophet by the name of Elijah spoke of the "still small voice" - Prophets had a ministry gift anointing but in general OT ppl although in covenant with God through Moses did not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them.

Your belief that man is totally depraved of good works before he is introduced to the indwelling Spirit is fantasy.

Doesn't matter how many goodworks they still have a heart that
is wicked and deceitful.

I don't believe man is "totally depraved" in the 5 point Calvinistic sense. However, he is dead to truth and the life and light of God. John says the condemnation is that men love darkness and

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator comment





Amen.
Terry

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  Kevin, Blain-while I am not
the Moderator I would like to remind you guys that according to the
Holy Spirit we are suppose to be subject to authority-Here Perry is
that authority.
  
  
  
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Kevin Deegan 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/16/2005 10:53:49 PM 
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment **




Can you print the entire
context, please? 
Blainerb



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Izzy's sex life

Hi Izzy, I was looking through some of my old e-mails and came upon

one with the above subject title--jus' thought I'd let you know I am
still 
waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . .

Blainerb


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:03:37 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Sinceyou have been asked to stop stirring the pot
And some subjects have been identified as OFF LIMITS
I have declined to comment
But since you guys can not leave it alone

I was refering to your PRIVATE email off list to a member
of this list stating you were
"waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete
description . . ."

  
  First of all, I don't recall writing
to anyone in private. If I did, it may have been becauseI had not
noticed it was private. Who was it that got the letter in private,
Kevin? Are you the one? It must have been you, or Dean--both of you
have brought this up--and if it was private why did you post it
contrary to the rules?.
  
  Secondly, I vaguely remember making
that comment, but I don't recall the context in whichI made it. Can
you print the entire context, please? 
  Blainerb
  
  


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud




Hi Dean:
You write:
cd: If one would read and study John 1: 9-it would help the conclusion of 
this debate. 
The light is now giving to ALL men and Gods laws are written in the hearts 
of ALL men 
therefore they will have no excuse for rejection of Christ nor breaking the 
Law-

I don't think I can see the same conclusion from John 
1:9.Dean. HereJohnwrites of 
his witness to the light. Why a witness if every man 
has this light in the form ofGod's Law 
written on their hearts already? Also John 1:4 
tells us that men "comprehended it not"

That is knowledge of God but to have salvation God must "speak" to man. 

Similar to there being no excuse as nature itself shows the works of 
God-Yet salvation 
is in the drawing. 

I do agree as per Romans 1:20 that invisible things are 
understood by the visible ie
"creation" so all men are aware that there is a God but 
they refuse to seek Him and 
learn to know Him because they love the darkness John 
3:19 so this is the condemnation.

Same with preaching the Gospel-to some it is the power of salvation and to 
the foolish 
it is unto a harder eternal judgement. 

God may use other means at times to get someone's 
attention but it is primarily "the
foolishness of preaching" 1 Cor 1:21 He uses to draw 
people to Himself through Christ.
The anointing rests upon HIS Word.

The bible states that to mock the gospel ( or the one preaching that 
gospel) leads to 
heavier chainsthrough outeternity. 

Where is thisin scripture?. At a class I've 
been in at our church the pastor was talking
about greater rewards and greater damnation. He used 
one word to get these analogies
I can't see it. To me this is comparable to Clinton's 
"it all depends what is, is" But this is
just one of the things that are problematicin 
Reformed doctrine.

Brothers and Sister in Christ don't think nothing is being accomplished by 
our works here 
on TT because one way or the others accountability will be giving-as God 
wants some 
peoples sins to be to the uttermost for punishment to the uttermost. By 
that same token we 
should use extreme caution with our words-which I find myself to fall short 
on-and now make 
a renewed effort to focus on this goal.

I hear you Dean.

Grace and Peace, judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath









- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?
Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co
ntinued but not here where it is needed most..

[TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




Since ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God 

These should put to rest whether or not unregenerates 
have God's Law written on their hearts (in them)
and whetherit is possible for them to do 
"by nature" the things that are written in God's Law as per 

Rom 2:14,15

Paul writes tothe church(called out ones) 
at Ephesus:

"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye 
henceforth walk not as other Gentiles
walk, in the vanity of their 
mind. Having the understanding darkened, being 
alienated from the
life of God through the 
ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of 
their heart. Who
being past feeling have given 
themselves over to lasciviousness, to work all 
uncleanness with
greediness. But ye have not so 
learned Christ." (Ephesians 4:17-20)

Grace and Peace,
judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud









- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 9:19:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud

Hi Dean:

cd: Hi Sis:-)
You write:
cd: If one would read and study John 1: 9-it would help the conclusion of this debate. 
The light is now giving to ALL men and Gods laws are written in the hearts of ALL men 
therefore they will have no excuse for rejection of Christ nor breaking the Law-

I don't think I can see the same conclusion from John 1:9.Dean. HereJohnwrites of 
his witness to the light. Why a witness if every man has this light in the form ofGod's Law 
written on their hearts already? Also John 1:4 tells us that men "comprehended it not"

cd: My version says "...Darkness comprehends it not." A true reprobate will never comprehend as they have been turned over to darkness. A wittiness leads one to Christ.The Law is the schoolmaster to know we have done wrong -but the wittiness is to tell about the light. Where the law failed to save the wittiness points towards salvation.

That is knowledge of God but to have salvation God must "speak" to man. 
Similar to there being no excuse as nature itself shows the works of God-Yet salvation 
is in the drawing. 

I do agree as per Romans 1:20 that invisible things are understood by the visible ie
"creation" so all men are aware that there is a God but they refuse to seek Him and 
learn to know Him because they love the darkness John 3:19 so this is the condemnation.

cd: Good we are in agreement:-)

Same with preaching the Gospel-to some it is the power of salvation and to the foolish 
it is unto a harder eternal judgement. 

God may use other means at times to get someone's attention but it is primarily "the
foolishness of preaching" 1 Cor 1:21 He uses to draw people to Himself through Christ.
The anointing rests upon HIS Word.
cd: Agreed.

The bible states that to mock the gospel ( or the one preaching that gospel) leads to 
heavier chainsthrough outeternity. 

Where is thisin scripture?. At a class I've been in at our church the pastor was talking
about greater rewards and greater damnation. He used one word to get these analogies
I can't see it. To me this is comparable to Clinton's "it all depends what is, is" But this is
just one of the things that are problematicin Reformed doctrine.

cd: Isa 28:22 is one but there is a clearer verse in the NT that I cannot seem to find at the monment-I think this is due to my search of wording which seem at this time to bepart NASV and KJV-and is leading to difficulty.

Rev:22:18 teaches a more severe punishment.
Rev 20:13 every man is judged according to their works.
Hebrews 10:29 ...sorer punishment..for thosewho havetrodden underfoot the Son of God (ie "sorer"means worse).
Mark 6:11 Teaches for some a more tolerable judgement than for others.

Brothers and Sister in Christ don't think nothing is being accomplished by our works here 
on TT because one way or the others accountability will be giving-as God wants some 
peoples sins to be to the uttermost for punishment to the uttermost. By that same token we 
should use extreme caution with our words-which I find myself to fall short on-and now make 
a renewed effort to focus on this goal.

I hear you Dean.

Grace and Peace, judyt

[TruthTalk] FYI Fresh Baked Bread (by Ken Mathews)



Fresh Baked 
Bread*Yes, he humbled you by letting you go 
hungry and then feeding youwith manna, a food previously unknown to you and 
your ancestors. Hedid it to teach you that people need more than bread for 
their life;real life comes by feeding on every word of the LORD. 
(Deuteronomy8:3 NLT)But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 
'People need more thanbread for their life; they must feed on every word of 
God.'"(Matthew 4:4 NLT)I grew up in Indianapolis Indiana. A 
block over from our house wasa wonder bread factory. Every morning, if the 
wind blew from thenorth the mouth-watering smell of fresh baked bread blew 
right overour house. In the summer, if our windows were open, the 
smellbreezed right through the house.There is nothing like the aroma 
of fresh baked bread. In thirteenyears, living in that house I never tired 
of the smell of fresh bakedwonder bread. I attribute that experience to my 
love for sandwiches,toast, cinnamon toast, and bread pudding.The 
wonder company makes some good bread, but I believe it would failmiserably 
if compared to the bread God made. Soon after the childrenof Israel crossed 
the Red Sea, God introduced them to fresh bakedManna. Oh, I can just imagine 
the sweet heavenly aroma of freshManna. I can just imagine every bite of 
Manna melting in my mouthlike honey.David calls it angel's food. Can 
you believe that? God gave thesepeople angel's food.They ate the 
food of angels! God gave themall they could hold. (Psalms 78:25 
NLT)This bread from heaven was special in many ways, but there is 
oneaspect of manna that carries with it the suggestion of feeding 
onGod's word. The manna was good for just one day. They could notcollect 
more than they needed to feed them in a day. In the samemanner, we must feed 
on God's word every day.Our strength in life is dependent on a daily 
nourishment of the foodof angels. That is right, the food of angels. Every 
day in heaven,the angels feed on God's awesome word. Hear what David says 
aboutthis.Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in 
strength,that do his commandments, hearkening untothe voice of his word. 
(Psalms 103:20 KJV)Angels excel in strength, not from physical manna, 
but from the wordof God they hear in heaven. Bread can only give us physical 
strengthfor a short time until we grow hungry again. On the other 
hand,God's word strengthens our spiritual being forever.We can 
vividly approach God's word every day as fresh baked bread.Can you smell the 
sweet aroma of God's love, mercy, holiness, andcompassion for your very 
life? Inviting you to feed on his wordevery day results in a heavenly 
nourishment that you just can't 
dowithout.Prayer**Father in heaven, I thank you so 
much for giving me your word fromheaven that sustains and strengthens my 
life here on earth, andpreserves it until I come home to you God. Please 
Father, help me tofeed daily on your word. Help me Father to savor every 
bite of yourword. In Christ name, I pray amen.

Re: [TruthTalk] FYI Fresh Baked Bread (by Ken Mathews)

2005-12-17 Thread Lance Muir

Wonderful! Thanks for this.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: December 17, 2005 12:57
  Subject: [TruthTalk] FYI "Fresh Baked 
  Bread" (by Ken Mathews)
  Fresh Baked 
  Bread*Yes, he humbled you by letting you go 
  hungry and then feeding youwith manna, a food previously unknown to you 
  and your ancestors. Hedid it to teach you that people need more than bread 
  for their life;real life comes by feeding on every word of the LORD. 
  (Deuteronomy8:3 NLT)But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 
  'People need more thanbread for their life; they must feed on every word 
  of God.'"(Matthew 4:4 NLT)I grew up in Indianapolis Indiana. A 
  block over from our house wasa wonder bread factory. Every morning, if the 
  wind blew from thenorth the mouth-watering smell of fresh baked bread blew 
  right overour house. In the summer, if our windows were open, the 
  smellbreezed right through the house.There is nothing like the 
  aroma of fresh baked bread. In thirteenyears, living in that house I never 
  tired of the smell of fresh bakedwonder bread. I attribute that experience 
  to my love for sandwiches,toast, cinnamon toast, and bread 
  pudding.The wonder company makes some good bread, but I believe it 
  would failmiserably if compared to the bread God made. Soon after the 
  childrenof Israel crossed the Red Sea, God introduced them to fresh 
  bakedManna. Oh, I can just imagine the sweet heavenly aroma of 
  freshManna. I can just imagine every bite of Manna melting in my 
  mouthlike honey.David calls it angel's food. Can you believe that? 
  God gave thesepeople angel's food.They ate the food of angels! God 
  gave themall they could hold. (Psalms 78:25 NLT)This bread from 
  heaven was special in many ways, but there is oneaspect of manna that 
  carries with it the suggestion of feeding onGod's word. The manna was good 
  for just one day. They could notcollect more than they needed to feed them 
  in a day. In the samemanner, we must feed on God's word every 
  day.Our strength in life is dependent on a daily nourishment of the 
  foodof angels. That is right, the food of angels. Every day in 
  heaven,the angels feed on God's awesome word. Hear what David says 
  aboutthis.Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in 
  strength,that do his commandments, hearkening untothe voice of his 
  word. (Psalms 103:20 KJV)Angels excel in strength, not from physical 
  manna, but from the wordof God they hear in heaven. Bread can only give us 
  physical strengthfor a short time until we grow hungry again. On the other 
  hand,God's word strengthens our spiritual being forever.We can 
  vividly approach God's word every day as fresh baked bread.Can you smell 
  the sweet aroma of God's love, mercy, holiness, andcompassion for your 
  very life? Inviting you to feed on his wordevery day results in a heavenly 
  nourishment that you just can't 
  dowithout.Prayer**Father in heaven, I thank you so 
  much for giving me your word fromheaven that sustains and strengthens my 
  life here on earth, andpreserves it until I come home to you God. Please 
  Father, help me tofeed daily on your word. Help me Father to savor every 
  bite of yourword. In Christ name, I pray 
amen.

Re: [TruthTalk] THE CROSS MISAPPREHENDED..NOW SMITH MOSES ON EQUAL FOOTING!?


Good question. I would be interested to see your answers, as well. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Dave Hansen said that he was on TT in order to understand the beliefs/practices of protestants. I've been on TT for a 'while'. Dave's been on for a 'while'.

DAVE:WOULD YOU CONSIDER OFFERING FOR US A SUMMARY OF THE 'BELIEFS/PRACTICES' OF THOSE YOU'VE BEEN READING? 

BLAINE:IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HEAR FROM YOU AS WELL.



- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 16, 2005 19:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 4:08:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


In a message dated 12/14/2005 5:00:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cd: The why don't Mormons live by Jesus's words instead of Smith's words.

Blainerb: . Smith lived and died for his testimony of Jesus Christ, whom he saw and spoke with on several occasions. Smith was His prophet, just as Moses was his prophet.There are exciting parallels between the two, in fact. If JS ever spoke anything contrary to the mind and will of the Lord, he spoke of himself. Being a man, having the weaknesses of a man, he may have done that on occasion. But that did not mean he was not a prophet who revealed the mind and will of Jesus Christ to man in these last days. Use the Holy Spirit, and the spirit of charity to be your guide in discerning the difference . . .

cd: And the sad part is you actually believe a man who said there were 6 ft quaker like people living on the moon-as a prophet of God-very sad indeed.

Re: [TruthTalk] FYI Fresh Baked Bread (by Ken Mathews)




I like it too ... Agreement!!! ... It must be 
Christmas :-) judyt

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:05:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Wonderful! Thanks for this.
  
Fresh Baked Bread*Yes, he 
humbled you by letting you go hungry and then feeding youwith manna, a 
food previously unknown to you and your ancestors. Hedid it to teach you 
that people need more than bread for their life;real life comes by 
feeding on every word of the LORD. (Deuteronomy8:3 NLT)But Jesus 
told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 'People need more thanbread for their 
life; they must feed on every word of God.'"(Matthew 4:4 
NLT)I grew up in Indianapolis Indiana. A block over from our 
house wasa wonder bread factory. Every morning, if the wind blew from 
thenorth the mouth-watering smell of fresh baked bread blew right 
overour house. In the summer, if our windows were open, the 
smellbreezed right through the house.There is nothing like the 
aroma of fresh baked bread. In thirteenyears, living in that house I 
never tired of the smell of fresh bakedwonder bread. I attribute that 
experience to my love for sandwiches,toast, cinnamon toast, and bread 
pudding.The wonder company makes some good bread, but I believe it 
would failmiserably if compared to the bread God made. Soon after the 
childrenof Israel crossed the Red Sea, God introduced them to fresh 
bakedManna. Oh, I can just imagine the sweet heavenly aroma of 
freshManna. I can just imagine every bite of Manna melting in my 
mouthlike honey.David calls it angel's food. Can you believe 
that? God gave thesepeople angel's food.They ate the food of 
angels! God gave themall they could hold. (Psalms 78:25 NLT)This 
bread from heaven was special in many ways, but there is oneaspect of 
manna that carries with it the suggestion of feeding onGod's word. The 
manna was good for just one day. They could notcollect more than they 
needed to feed them in a day. In the samemanner, we must feed on God's 
word every day.Our strength in life is dependent on a daily 
nourishment of the foodof angels. That is right, the food of angels. 
Every day in heaven,the angels feed on God's awesome word. Hear what 
David says aboutthis.Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel 
in strength,that do his commandments, hearkening untothe voice of 
his word. (Psalms 103:20 KJV)Angels excel in strength, not from 
physical manna, but from the wordof God they hear in heaven. Bread can 
only give us physical strengthfor a short time until we grow hungry 
again. On the other hand,God's word strengthens our spiritual being 
forever.We can vividly approach God's word every day as fresh baked 
bread.Can you smell the sweet aroma of God's love, mercy, holiness, 
andcompassion for your very life? Inviting you to feed on his 
wordevery day results in a heavenly nourishment that you just can't 
dowithout.Prayer**Father in heaven, I thank you 
so much for giving me your word fromheaven that sustains and strengthens 
my life here on earth, andpreserves it until I come home to you God. 
Please Father, help me tofeed daily on your word. Help me Father to 
savor every bite of yourword. In Christ name, I pray 
amen.
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath





Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Terry Clifton 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath


Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to judge
another man's servant? To his own master he stands or
falls..One person
esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let
each be fully convinced in his own mind.
You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath,
therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not.
You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?

Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would
like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the
obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of
Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God
sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done
away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying
this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young
ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the
4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth
not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and
the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it
is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be
fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not
because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or
"Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon
being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one
would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as
unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that
eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that
it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews
demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans
14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments
should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather
11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's
law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions"
and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one
convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke
warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of
God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what
is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe
his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as
there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one
should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this
small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor
do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows
into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co
ntinued but not here where it is needed most..
  

===

  
I appreciate your trying to help me Dean, but I do not agree.



Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator comment


Well, Dean, we are in full agreement on this one. 

jd

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


Kevin, Blain-while I am not the Moderator I would like to remind you guys that according to the Holy Spirit we are suppose to be subject to authority-Here Perry is that authority.




- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 10:53:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment **


Can you print the entire context, please? 
Blainerb


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Izzy's sex lifeHi Izzy, I was looking through some of my old e-mails and came upon one with the above subject title--jus' thought I'd let you know I am still waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . .Blainerb[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:03:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sinceyou have been asked to stop stirring the pot
And some subjects have been identified as OFF LIMITS
I have declined to comment
But since you guys can not leave it alone

I was refering to your PRIVATE email off list to a member of this list stating you were
"waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . ."

First of all, I don't recall writing to anyone in private. If I did, it may have been becauseI had not noticed it was private. Who was it that got the letter in private, Kevin? Are you the one? It must have been you, or Dean--both of you have brought this up--and if it was private why did you post it contrary to the rules?.

Secondly, I vaguely remember making that comment, but I don't recall the context in whichI made it. Can you print the entire context, please? 
Blainerb
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath


Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?)

jd

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







- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?
Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co
 ntinued but not here where it is needed most..

RE: [TruthTalk] FYI Fresh Baked Bread (by Ken Mathews)




cd: Thank you Judy.




- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 1:00:22 PM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] FYI "Fresh Baked Bread" (by Ken Mathews)
Fresh Baked Bread*Yes, he humbled you by letting you go hungry and then feeding youwith manna, a food previously unknown to you and your ancestors. Hedid it to teach you that people need more than bread for their life;real life comes by feeding on every word of the LORD. (Deuteronomy8:3 NLT)But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 'People need more thanbread for their life; they must feed on every word of God.'"(Matthew 4:4 NLT)I grew up in Indianapolis Indiana. A block over from our house wasa wonder bread factory. Every morning, if the wind blew from thenorth the mouth-watering smell of fresh baked bread blew right overour house. In the summer, if our windows were open, the smellbreezed right through the house.There is nothing like the aroma of fresh baked bread. In thirteenyears, living in that house I never tired of the smell of fresh bakedw
onder bread. I attribute that experience to my love for sandwiches,toast, cinnamon toast, and bread pudding.The wonder company makes some good bread, but I believe it would failmiserably if compared to the bread God made. Soon after the childrenof Israel crossed the Red Sea, God introduced them to fresh bakedManna. Oh, I can just imagine the sweet heavenly aroma of freshManna. I can just imagine every bite of Manna melting in my mouthlike honey.David calls it angel's food.. Can you believe that? God gave thesepeople angel's food.They ate the food of angels! God gave themall they could hold. (Psalms 78:25 NLT)This bread from heaven was special in many ways, but there is oneaspect of manna that carries with it the suggestion of feeding onGod's word. The manna was good for just one day. They could notcollect more than they needed to feed them in a day. In the samemanner, we must feed on God's word every day.Our strength in life is dependent on a da
ily nourishment of the foodof angels. That is right, the food of angels. Every day in heaven,the angels feed on God's awesome word. Hear what David says aboutthis.Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength,that do his commandments, hearkening untothe voice of his word. (Psalms 103:20 KJV)Angels excel in strength, not from physical manna, but from the wordof God they hear in heaven. Bread can only give us physical strengthfor a short time until we grow hungry again. On the other hand,God's word strengthens our spiritual being forever.We can vividly approach God's word every day as fresh baked bread.Can you smell the sweet aroma of God's love, mercy, holiness, andcompassion for your very life? Inviting you to feed on his wordevery day results in a heavenly nourishment that you just can't dowithout.Prayer**Father in heaven, I thank you so much for giving me your word fromheaven that sustains and strengthens my life here on ea
rth, andpreserves it until I come home to you God. Please Father, help me tofeed daily on your word. Help me Father to savor every bite of yourword. In Christ name, I pray amen.

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




here you prove you 
are given to radically manipulatingAuthority in more ways than one; here 
you clearlyenforceyour own dualisticdouble standard 
mouthingtruthgiven to biblical saintsas platitudes 
fromreligious republicanism which equatesthe reign ofChrist to 
enforcing therule of elitist 'mammon'

in sum, the 
effectiveteaching of the verse, below,is exactly the reverse of your 
manipulative intent

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:01 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their 
  mind.

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath









- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 1:19:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Dean Moore wrote: 







- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?
Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co
 ntinued but not here where it is needed most..===


I appreciate your trying to help me Dean, but I do not agree.Terry


cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting that you are disagreeing with?

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath





Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Terry Clifton 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/17/2005 1:19:38 PM 
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath


Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Terry Clifton 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath


Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to
judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or
falls..One person
esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let
each be fully convinced in his own mind.
You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath,
therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not.
You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?

Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I
would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's
word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the
obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of
Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God
sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done
away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying
this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young
ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the
4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth
not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and
the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even
mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to
be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or
not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or
"Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon
being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one
would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as
unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that
eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that
it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews
demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans
14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which
commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11
commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke
warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live
by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that
"still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires
of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be
any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private
convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for
teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto
submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you
Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the
feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other
to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the
keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that
Holy place it is co ntinued but not here where it is needed most..
  

===

  
I appreciate your trying to help me Dean, but I do not
agree.



Terry

  
cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting
that you are disagreeing with?

I realize that the commandments were for the children of
Israel. I was never under the law and am not under the law now. I
have no obligation to keep the Sabbath. I am free from the law.





Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




Dualistic nothing and manipulating nothing Gary; I 
quoted scripture as written in the KJV Bible
If you have a dispute about it - it is not with 
me. If you can not receive it - this is your problem not 
mine.. Not everyone is 
able to receive sound doctrine and Ephesians 4:17-20 as is - is sound 
...


"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye 
henceforth walk not as other Gentiles
walk, in the vanity of their 
mind. Having the understanding darkened, being 
alienated from the
life of God through the 
ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of 
their heart. Who
being past feeling have given 
themselves over to lasciviousness, to work all 
uncleanness with
greediness. But ye have not so 
learned Christ." (Ephesians 4:17-20)

Are you in possession of a "renewed mind" yourself 
Gary??

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:30:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  here you prove 
  you are given to radically manipulatingAuthority in more ways than one; 
  here you clearlyenforceyour own dualisticdouble standard 
  mouthingtruthgiven to biblical saintsas platitudes 
  fromreligious republicanism which equatesthe reign ofChrist 
  to enforcing therule of elitist 'mammon'
  
  in sum, the 
  effectiveteaching of the verse, below,is exactly the reverse of 
  your manipulative intent
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:01 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  

walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their 
mind.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




you manipulate it 
too, as clearly proven

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:17 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ||
  I quote..scripture as written in the KJV 
  Bible

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




Where and how? Evidence please?
Your ongoing consistent accusations are a bit old Gary; 
you need to give a foundation for these
accusations. So show me how this scripture is 
manipulated and evidence that this is clearly proven.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  you manipulate it 
  too, as clearly proven
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:17 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
||
I quote..scripture as written in the KJV 
Bible
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross




Blaine, DaveH kicked himself off.
The Moderator told him that it was his last 
warning - that's all... because they kept ignoring him and went on with a 
thread
he told them to take offline. Who told you 
he was kicked off?? judyt

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:10:42 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  How come you kicked DaveH off? What he was saying was 
  true. (See red 
  below)Am I going next?
  Blainerb
  
  That is unexcusable behavior in my 
  opinion.  ??? 
  unexcusable behavior..what's that mean? Perhaps 
  you should consult a dictionary before discussing my behavior as being 
  unexcusable. FWIWNot only do I 
  consider your behavior to be less than stellar as well, your opinion as 
  an anti-Mormon doesn't mean a lot to me, Perry. You are simply too 
  biased against Mormonism to have valid argument worthy of consideration. 
  Furthermore, you've made a public statement 
  announcing that you are going to grind your ax against 
  Mormonism. So your actions come as no surprise. 
   But as the moderator of TT, you are 
  correct.I should be more respectful of your wishes when you request that I 
  take the discussion off-line. And for that, I owe you an 
  apology...but am not sure why, as one of your two posts yesterday simply 
  asked me if we could take the discussion off-line. (And noI did not 
  want to take it or this one off-line either.)  The post below however, 
  firmly requested such.  It's just a little difficult for me to do so 
  when you post whatever you want, and prevent me from doing the 
  same. I don't know if you have 
  noticed, but IMO I've not treated you any worse than you've treated me. 
  You just happen to hold the big 
  stick. So..IF you have rules 
  to be obeyed on TT.post them, and when I feel you are violating them, I'll 
  just pitch it back to you. If on the other hand, I violate them first, 
  then bring it to my attention. Contrary to Deans assertion that I'm a 
  crybaby over this.that's nonsense. I'm just going to mirror back 
  what you send my way. So far, I've 
  only heard of one firm ruleno ad-homs.and your request 
  to take the sexual threads off-Forum a month or so ago.which I did. 
  I think your action on that one was a bit too restrictive, as you publicly 
  made some false accusations that were not resolved. Which is why I 
  violated your desire to keep this last one private. You have made false 
  accusations and refused to back them up with factual quotes to support your 
  position. Then before the topic can be properly discussed, you ban 
  further posts.  Do 
  you want to make up new rules for TT, Perry? If not...is the ad-hom 
  rule going to be adequate, or are you going to continue banning discussions 
  for no other reason than you think they are 
  disruptive? In the past, disruptive posts haven't 
  seemed to trouble you too much. Now that they are a bit closer to home, 
  you seem to be a little overly sensitive to them 
  though. The question is why do you feel the need to 
  ban topics if there are no complaints of ad-homs? 
  BTWI'm copying this to Blaine, as I suspect he will be curious as to 
  what is discussed related to Mormonism off-line, and as an LDS TTer, I think 
  there is some pertinence to him in this exchange...I hope that is OK with 
  you.  I suspect a few other TTers would also like to know what's going 
  on, but you've pretty well eliminated that possibility, Perry.
  
  
  
  In a message dated 12/15/2005 7:26:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
  
  
  Blaine, Try reading through the NT 
and replace every occurrence of the word "cross" with "star". The text 
becomes meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part of the Chrsitian 
landscape, directly from scripture. It has meaning and value beyond 
merely an instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our freedom in 
Christ. The star does not. The atonement did not happen 
in Gethsemane, it did not happen at the resurrection. It happened on the 
cross. Our Lord cried out "it is finished" at the moment the debt we can 
never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try to change that is to deny 
scripture.Perry
  
  
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

2005-12-17 Thread Lance Muir




IFO have thought of DaveH as one of the more discrimitating contributors to 
TT.Should he be invited back with an accompanying apology and full 
complicity?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: December 17, 2005 16:10
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
  
  
  How come you kicked DaveH off? What he was saying was 
  true. (See red 
  below)Am I going next?
  Blainerb
  
  That is unexcusable behavior in my 
  opinion.  ??? 
  unexcusable behavior..what's that mean? Perhaps 
  you should consult a dictionary before discussing my behavior as being 
  unexcusable. FWIWNot only do I 
  consider your behavior to be less than stellar as well, your opinion as 
  an anti-Mormon doesn't mean a lot to me, Perry. You are simply too 
  biased against Mormonism to have valid argument worthy of consideration. 
  Furthermore, you've made a public statement 
  announcing that you are going to grind your ax against 
  Mormonism. So your actions come as no surprise. 
   But as the moderator of TT, you are 
  correct.I should be more respectful of your wishes when you request that I 
  take the discussion off-line. And for that, I owe you an 
  apology...but am not sure why, as one of your two posts yesterday simply 
  asked me if we could take the discussion off-line. (And noI did not 
  want to take it or this one off-line either.)  The post below however, 
  firmly requested such.  It's just a little difficult for me to do so 
  when you post whatever you want, and prevent me from doing the 
  same. I don't know if you have 
  noticed, but IMO I've not treated you any worse than you've treated me. 
  You just happen to hold the big 
  stick. So..IF you have rules 
  to be obeyed on TT.post them, and when I feel you are violating them, I'll 
  just pitch it back to you. If on the other hand, I violate them first, 
  then bring it to my attention. Contrary to Deans assertion that I'm a 
  crybaby over this.that's nonsense. I'm just going to mirror back 
  what you send my way. So far, I've 
  only heard of one firm ruleno ad-homs.and your request 
  to take the sexual threads off-Forum a month or so ago.which I did. 
  I think your action on that one was a bit too restrictive, as you publicly 
  made some false accusations that were not resolved. Which is why I 
  violated your desire to keep this last one private. You have made false 
  accusations and refused to back them up with factual quotes to support your 
  position. Then before the topic can be properly discussed, you ban 
  further posts.  Do 
  you want to make up new rules for TT, Perry? If not...is the ad-hom 
  rule going to be adequate, or are you going to continue banning discussions 
  for no other reason than you think they are 
  disruptive? In the past, disruptive posts haven't 
  seemed to trouble you too much. Now that they are a bit closer to home, 
  you seem to be a little overly sensitive to them 
  though. The question is why do you feel the need to 
  ban topics if there are no complaints of ad-homs? 
  BTWI'm copying this to Blaine, as I suspect he will be curious as to 
  what is discussed related to Mormonism off-line, and as an LDS TTer, I think 
  there is some pertinence to him in this exchange...I hope that is OK with 
  you.  I suspect a few other TTers would also like to know what's going 
  on, but you've pretty well eliminated that possibility, Perry.
  
  
  
  In a message dated 12/15/2005 7:26:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
  
  
  Blaine, Try reading through the NT and replace 
every occurrence of the word "cross" with "star". The text becomes 
meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part of the Chrsitian landscape, 
directly from scripture. It has meaning and value beyond merely an 
instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our freedom in Christ. 
The star does not. The atonement did not happen in 
Gethsemane, it did not happen at the resurrection. It happened on the 
cross. Our Lord cried out "it is finished" at the moment the debt we can 
never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try to change that is to deny 
scripture.Perry

Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil

Blainerb: A true angel of light is
just that--an angel of light.Not all angels of light are Satan
masquerading as such. Most are real. Moroni was real, but when Satan
appeared on the banks of the Susquehanna River masquerading as an angel of
light, he was detected by Michael, the archangel (of light). That is the
only account I know where Satan tried to pass himself off as an angel of
light.

In a message dated 12/15/2005 6:08:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

IT was the DC that said Moroni was an Angel of light thus
SATAN
By the way he was not "posing" he was Transformed like your false
apostles are transformed. Remember this "heavenly" messenger came on the
occult Autumn Equinox and told joe to observe the same for the next few
years.

Moroni APPEARS as an angel of Light
JSH 2:30I discovered a light appearing
in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at
noonday

Autumn Equinox Visitations
Introductory page of the DC, 3rd paragraph says; “This
took place in the early spring of 1820.
In September, 1823, and at later times, Joseph Smith received
visitations from Moroni, an angel of
light"

For such are false apostles,
deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light.

http://www.lifeafter.org/angel.asp

Angel of
LightAggelos;
a messenger. Phos; face, luminous, fire, light
It is one of Satan’s most blatant exposé’s of the whole Mormon
legend. The sad thing about it is
that the Mormon won’t see it because he believes that he’s untouchable
in his garments. Don’t
be fooled my friend, Satan is indeed an angel of light, just like Moroni. Think about it, he even took
the place of the cross on top of the temples. He’s there trumpeting to the whole
world that he’s in charge. He’s
not there to proclaim the return of Jesus, guaranteed.

Don't think you can be
deceived?

Is this your Jesus?

Occultists look for Angels of light
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: "RIDLED?" You mean "RIDDLED?"
You and your street preacher friends have eyes but are blind to the
truth. You see occult stuff all over, I suppose, even in American
flags, American war planes, medals of honor, etc. If an angel appeared
to you, you would say it was Satan posing as an angel of light. By the
way, when are you going to tell us more about the beat up star you showed,
with 666 on it? We want a URL on that please.

In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:18:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your
religion is RIDLED with occult Themes and you want to
joke?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: LOL The maintenance people in and around the
temple wear ordinary work clothing--no red suits or pitchforks.
Have you been having nightmares, or, worse yet, hallucinations? Don't
let these things get to you, Kevin. You must get a hold of
yourself!

In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:38:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LOL and the guy with the red suit
pitchfork is just the maintenance
man[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blainerb: If Kevin were honest
with TT'rs, he would tell you the truth--the stars"plastered
all over" the Salt Lake Temple, altho all five-sided, are not all inverted. Some are, some are
not. They were placed there for decorative purposes, as
well as symbolizing the North Star, the Morning star, the Star of
Bethlehem, the Telestial Kingdom, the creations of God,
etc.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





Blainerb: Yeah, Kevin, I 
repeat Dave's question--will Jesus be wearing a chain around his neck with a 
cross dangling on it when he comes? I always understood he would be 
dressed in red, symbol of the blood he spilt in the Garden of 
Gethsemene. 
And, if he is not wearing his cross, 
what then? 


In a message dated 12/15/2005 6:16:56 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  LDS buildings have a Golden Angel on top pointing east just another 
  coincident?
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Do 
you hate the cross also?DAVEH: No Kevin..I do 
not hate the cross. I just find it peculiarly interesting that many 
Christians seem so attached to the device used to torture and kill our 
Lord. When Jesus returns to the earth, do you think it likely he 
will be wearing a chain around his neck with a cross attached? 
 Furthermore, why do you feel the implied need to 
categorize people as cross lovers or cross haters? Is it not possible 
that one can look upon the cross in its historical context, by recognizing 
what it did to our Savior without categorizing him (not referring to Jesus) 
as a cross hater? How would you categorize Jesus.is he a cross 
lover or hater?

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath



cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting that you 
are disagreeing with?


Jd: the comments below are or should be of some value. It is safe to say, however, that Terry Cliffton is not disagreeing with scripture - only your understanding of scripture. I personally believe that Paul has in mind any holy day - and, most definitely the Sabbath. Christ is the end of the law. N.T. scriptures do not separate the "Law" into dietary, ceremonial and moral -- man does this. Your opinion cannot, therefore, be considered as being on the same levelas scripture, in this case. 

jd

Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?)

jd

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







- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?
Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co
 ntinued but not here where it is needed most..

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles


Your view that Mattt 7:11 is talking about the reception of the baptism of the Holy spirit is the most recent case in point.

jd

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

Where and how? Evidence please?
Your ongoing consistent accusations are a bit old Gary; you need to give a foundation for these
accusations. So show me how this scripture is manipulated and evidence that this is clearly proven.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

you manipulate it too, as clearly proven

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:17 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

||
I quote..scripture as written in the KJV Bible
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


He is certainly not nearly as disruptive as at least two others on this forum. I jwill tnot refer kto them by dname but they probably know who they are? 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



IFO have thought of DaveH as one of the more discrimitating contributors to TT.Should he be invited back with an accompanying apology and full complicity?

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: December 17, 2005 16:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


How come you kicked DaveH off? What he was saying was true. (See red below)Am I going next?
Blainerb

That is unexcusable behavior in my opinion.  ??? unexcusable behavior..what's that mean? Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before discussing my behavior as being unexcusable. FWIWNot only do I consider your behavior to be less than stellar as well, your opinion as an anti-Mormon doesn't mean a lot to me, Perry. You are simply too biased against Mormonism to have valid argument worthy of consideration. Furthermore, you've made a public statement announcing that you are going to grind your ax against Mormonism. So your actions come as no surprise.  But as the moderator of TT, you are correct.I should be more respectful of your wishes when you request that I take the discussion off-line. And for that, I owe you an apology...but am not sure why, as one of your t
wo posts yesterday simply asked me if we could take the discussion off-line. (And noI did not want to take it or this one off-line either.)  The post below however, firmly requested such.  It's just a little difficult for me to do so when you post whatever you want, and prevent me from doing the same. I don't know if you have noticed, but IMO I've not treated you any worse than you've treated me. You just happen to hold the big stick. So..IF you have rules to be obeyed on TT.post them, and when I feel you are violating them, I'll just pitch it back to you. If on the other hand, I violate them first, then bring it to my attention. Contrary to Deans assertion that I'm a crybaby over this.that's nonsense. I'm just going to mirror back what you send my way. So far, I've only heard of one firm ruleno ad-homs..and your request to take
 the sexual threads off-Forum a month or so ago.which I did. I think your action on that one was a bit too restrictive, as you publicly made some false accusations that were not resolved. Which is why I violated your desire to keep this last one private. You have made false accusations and refused to back them up with factual quotes to support your position. Then before the topic can be properly discussed, you ban further posts.  Do you want to make up new rules for TT, Perry? If not...is the ad-hom rule going to be adequate, or are you going to continue banning discussions for no other reason than you think they are disruptive? In the past, disruptive posts haven't seemed to trouble you too much. Now that they are a bit closer to home, you seem to be a little overly sensitive to them though. The question is why do you feel the need to ban topics if there are no complaints of 
ad-homs? BTWI'm copying this to Blaine, as I suspect he will be curious as to what is discussed related to Mormonism off-line, and as an LDS TTer, I think there is some pertinence to him in this exchange...I hope that is OK with you.  I suspect a few other TTers would also like to know what's going on, but you've pretty well eliminated that possibility, Perry.



In a message dated 12/15/2005 7:26:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Blaine, Try reading through the NT and replace every occurrence of the word "cross" with "star". The text becomes meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part of the Chrsitian landscape, directly from scripture. It has meaning and value beyond merely an instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our freedom in Christ. The star does not. The atonement did not happen in Gethsemane, it did not happen at the resurrection. It happened on the cross. Our Lord cried out "it is finished" at the moment the debt we can never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try to change that is to deny scripture.Perry

Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ...





In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:59:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  So a Satanist is on vacation in Utah
  he decides to take a tour of the temple.
  What do you think his thoughts would be when he sees his symbol for his 
  god on your buildings?

Blainerb: Actually, that is not 
outside the realm of possibility--a lot of people vacationing in Utah see the 
stars and etc. on the temples. Most are not concerned, unless they have 
been brainwashed by the Street Preachers. 
But, in answer to your question, I hope 
he would investigate the LDS religion and become enlightened as we are--he would 
have to give up his Satan worship, however, to be baptized into the 
Church.

Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ...





Blainerb: To "be perfect," it seems one would first have to become 
perfect--which may take more time for some than others.I do OK in 
following the admonitions of Jesus Christ, and I believe I do better each 
day--but I am after all a son of Adam and Eve, from whom I inherited 
imperfections.


In a message dated 12/16/2005 9:03:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is 
  perfect." 
  
  Notice it does not say become perfect it says BE - Present TENSE
  How are you doing?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  



You are entitled to your opinion, Lance, however, I do not see that 
such Mormon beliefs as you have outlined detract from traditional 
Christianity--they do go beyond it, but I see no reason this should be an 
arrow in the side of Christians who are trying to live Christianity as they 
understand it.I see nothing unhallowed in the 
God-was-a-man-who-became-perfect beliefs of the Mormon Church--in fact, it 
seems to be quite a lofty idea, aimed at improving one's motivationto 
become perfect and more god-like. As Jesus said, "Be ye 
therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Do you 
not intend to keep this commandment, Lance? 
Blainerb

[TruthTalk] We the People...of the United States

2005-12-17 Thread ShieldsFamily












 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  We The People. Of The United States
   
   
   This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a
   long, long time. The
   following has been attributed to State
   Representative Mitchell Aye from
   GA. This guy should run for President one day...
   
   
   We the sensible people of the United States, in an
   attempt to help
   everyone get along, restore some semblance of
   justice, avoid more riots,
   keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior,
   and secure the blessings
   of debt free liberty to ourselves and our
   great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one
   more time to ordain and
   establish some common sense guidelines . We hold
   these truths to be self
   evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by
   the Bill of Rights
   and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.
   
   ARTICLE I: You d o not have the right to a new car,
   big screen TV, or any
   other form of wealth. More power to you if you can
   legally acquire them,
   but no one is guaranteeing anything.
   
   ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be
   offended. This country
   is based on freedom, and that means freedom for
   everyone -- not just you!
   You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a
   different opinion,
   etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably
   always will be.
   
   ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free
   from harm. If you stick
   a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more
   careful, do not expect the
   tool manufacturer to make you and all your
   relatives independently
   wealthy.
   
   ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food
   and housing. Americans
   are the most charitable people to be f ound, and
   will gladly help anyone
   in need, but we are quickly growing weary of
   subsidizing generation after
   generation of professional couch potatoes who
   achieve nothing more than
   the creation of another generation of professional
   couch potatoes.
   
   ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health
   care. That would be
   nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're
   just not interested in
   public health care.
   
   ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically
   harm other people. If
   you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill
   someone, don't be surprised
   if the rest of us want to see you fry in the
   electric chair.
   
   ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the
   possessions of others. If
   you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or
   services of other citizens,
   don't be surp rised if the rest of us get together
   and lock you away in a
   place where you still won't have the right to a big
   screen color TV or a
   life of leisure.
   
   ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job.
   All of us sure want you
   to have a job, and will gladly help you along in
   hard times, but we
   expect you to take advantage of the opportunities
   of education and
   vocational training laid before you to make
   yourself useful.
   
   ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness.
   Being an American
   means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness,
   which by the way, is a
   lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over
   abundance of idiotic laws
   created by those of you who were confused by the
   Bill of Rights.
   
   ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We
   don't care where you
   are f rom, English is our language. Learn it or go
   back to wherever you
   came from! (lastly) NOW..
   
   ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our
   country's history or
   heritage. This country was founded on the belief in
   one true God. And
   yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any
   religion, any faith, or
   no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The
   phrase IN GOD WE TRUST
   is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
   uncomfortable with
   it, TOUGH
   
   If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you
   don't have to, and
   nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just
   think it's about time
   common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible
   people of the United
States
   speak out because if you do not, who will?

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 1:41:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?)

jd
cd:If Romans 14 eliminates all Holy Days why then did Christ and Paul keep those Holy Days? Why did the early Christians keep the Sat. Sabb. and honor the first day?On considering the Contextual meaning relating of the passage in Question one must insert the passage into the context of the entirechapter or the meaning of the passage will be lost-and once that is done insert the chapter into the entire Bible. The context of thechapter deals with eating herbs or meats on Holy days and to not judge ones brother if they eat herbs or eat other foods. No where in the context of this passage does it mention the Sabbath-it is speaking of the Feasts of Israel (ie called Holy Days). Is there not a Commentary available for you or Terry to research?If not E-Sword is a good starting place.Your argument would be better fought using Col 2:6. Romans 14:5 Is teaching us to be fully persuaded that there is not sin involved-breaking a commandment is sin therefore the Sabbath is obligatory.

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







- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?
Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator comment





Oh, yeah, now I remember writing that. I should have just said I was 
holding my breath, huh? :)
Blainerb



In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:54:01 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  Can you print the entire context, please? 
  
  Blainerb
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00 
  PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Izzy's sex 
  lifeHi Izzy, I was looking through some of my old e-mails and 
  came upon one with the above subject title--jus' thought I'd let you know 
  I am still waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete 
  description . . 
  .Blainerb[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:03:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Sinceyou have been asked to stop stirring the pot
  And some subjects have been identified as OFF LIMITS
  I have declined to comment
  But since you guys can not leave it alone
  
  I was refering to your PRIVATE email off list to a member of this 
  list stating you were
  "waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . 
  ."

First of all, I don't recall writing to anyone in 
private. If I did, it may have been becauseI had not noticed it 
was private. Who was it that got the letter in private, Kevin? 
Are you the one? It must have been you, or Dean--both of you have 
brought this up--and if it was private why did you post it contrary to the 
rules?.

Secondly, I vaguely remember making 
that comment, but I don't recall the context in whichI made it. 
Can you print the entire context, please? 
Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross




In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:59:42 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  discerning the difference . . .
  
  cd: And the sad part is you actually believe a man who said there were 6 
  ft quaker like people living on the moon-as a prophet of God-very sad 
  indeed.

He may have said that, but he also testified of the 
reality of Jesus Christ. Would you count that as being 
uninspired?
Blainerb

  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 4:08:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


In a message dated 12/14/2005 5:00:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cd: The why don't Mormons live by Jesus's 
  words instead of Smith's words.

Blainerb: . Smith lived and died for his testimony of Jesus 
Christ, whom he saw and spoke with on several occasions. Smith was His 
prophet, just as Moses was his prophet.There are exciting parallels 
between the two, in fact. If JS ever spoke anything contrary to 
the mind and will of the Lord, he spoke of himself. Being a man, having the 
weaknesses of a man, he may have done that on occasion. But that did 
not mean he was not a prophet who revealed the mind and will of Jesus Christ 
to man in these last days. Use the Holy Spirit, and the spirit of 
charity to be your guide in discerning the difference . . .

cd: And the sad part is you actually believe a man who said there were 
6 ft quaker like people living on the moon-as a prophet of God-very sad 
indeed.

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat





A good reason, but there had to be a more profound reason, huh?


In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:59:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  

How about to fulfill prophecy? Is that a good reason?

Blainer wrote

  
   I am not sure why dying had to take place on the cross, 
  eventually, unless it has something to do with overcoming death--which had 
  to be done in order to overcome the effects of Adam's transgression and 
  fall, wherein death was brought into the world.

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath


Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. 


As to Paul, it is Paul who writes against holy days. Why did he continue to keep them (and I believe he kept ALL of them) : he became all things to all men that by all means he might save some. He was a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. 

jd

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







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 1:41:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?)

jd
cd:If Romans 14 eliminates all Holy Days why then did Christ and Paul keep those Holy Days? Why did the early Christians keep the Sat. Sabb. and honor the first day?On considering the Contextual meaning relating of the passage in Question one must insert the passage into the context of the entirechapter or the meaning of the passage will be lost-and once that is done insert the chapter into the entire Bible. The context of thechapter deals with eating herbs or meats on Holy days and to not judge ones brother if they eat herbs or eat other foods. No where in the context of this passage does it mention the Sabbath-it is speaking of the Feasts of Israel (ie called Holy Days). Is there not a Commentary available for you or Terry to research?If not E-Sword is a good starting place.Your argument would be better fought using Col 2:6. Romans 14:5 Is teaching us to be fully persuaded that there is not sin involved-breaking a commandment is sin therefore the Sabbath is obligatory.

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







- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

Romans 14:4-6  Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you?
Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word.

1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing.

2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2.

3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat







Then what do youthink Gethsemane was all about? He shed blood 
then, as well as on the cross, and was in such an agony as to almost 
die. Dying was not the only sacrifice he made. He 
suffered for sin in Gethsemane,he died on Calvary, in order to overcome 
death, and made it possible for us to do the same. He had to die, but I am 
not so sure it had to be on the cross.

In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:59:53 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/16/2005 6:17:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] sweat


Hmm, good points, Kevin, but I doubt there is really a discrepancy or 
contradiction, otherwise how are you going to explain the agony of 
Gethsemene? What he suffered on the cross was more physical, which 
lead to his death--but there obviously was the agony of Gethsemene, wherein 
he suffered for the sins of mankind, to such an extent as to come 
justshort of dying. I am not sure why dying had to take place on 
the cross, eventually, unless it has something to do with overcoming 
death--which had to be done in order to overcome the effects of Adam's 
transgression and fall, wherein death was brought into the world. That 
would make sense to me--but let's face it, the entire matter of his being 
able to reconcile man with God after the fall of Adam which brought sin and death into the world 
was a great miracle. I am not sure any man fully comprehends it. 
We see in part through the glass darkly now, but someday we will see more 
clearly, hopefully.nbs p;

cd: The simple fact that Jesus walked out of the 
garden and failed to walk away from the cross (yes,I Know He rose 3 
days later) but he had to be carried from the cross should prove the 
crosswas life threaten not the garden-In the Garden he was praying 
hard for the believers and the world-so hard that blood fell as drops of 
sweat would fall.John chapter 17 is the prayer he prayed in the Garden -you 
should read it-good stuff. There have been other Believers-through out 
history-who have also prayedin this mannerhard and had 
blood also come out of their pours as sweat would.

In a message dated 12/16/2005 1:29:55 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat






BLOOD is the key word, I think--which he shed 
in large quantitiesin Gethsemane--apparently more than he actually shed on 
Calvary. When he returns he will be wearing red--right? This is a 
symbol of his blood drenching his entire body, which it did not do on the 
cross. In fact, other than the wounds in his hands, feet, and sides, 
little blood was shed on the Calvary cross. 
Blainerb

In a message dated 12/16/2005 9:06:53 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blaine, your 
  question reveals why you don’t understand Christian reverence for the 
  Cross. Jesus had to die on the cross as the payment for our sins. 
  He was the innocent, perfect sacrificial Passover lamb, slain for the sins of 
  the world. Just as the Jews, who were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, had to 
  paint the blood of the Passover lamb on their doorposts to make the Destroyer 
  pass by them during judgment on that horrible night in Egypt when all the 
  firstborn were slain, Jesus serves as our blood sacrifice, that we might 
  be spared death for our slavery to sin, and deliverance from sin—just as the 
  Jews were delivered from Egypt. Jesus, the Firstborn, who was without 
  sin, was the only one qualified to be that perfect holy sacrifice for our 
  sins. It was His Blood, shed on the Cross (nowhere else, because THAT is 
  where He actually was slain), that redeems all those who take cover under it, 
  just as the Jews did under their doorposts. THAT is why satan HATES the 
  mention of THE BLOOD OF CHRIST—because THAT is what OVERCAME his evil devices 
  and has sealed his eternal doom, as well as the Believer’s eternal deliverance 
  from damnation. May God help you to understand this. 
  Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat




think with us about 'blood 
shed', Bro--the connotation of 'blood shed' makes it the key, not merely 
'blood'--eh?

'blood shed', as you've 
already realized,accurately accounts for the NTcrucifixion violence, 
the literary emphasis of the Gospel accounts of 'the 
Cross'

English 
nuancecaptures the foregoingNT concept in the compounded wording, 
blood shed, or, shed blood, which, as is obvious,isproperly 
associatedwith Golgotha, not Gethsemane


On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:36:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  BLOOD is the key word
  ||
  blood was shed

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




Have no idea or frame of reference as to what you are 
talking about
Best drift back off into Dylan land. Sorry to 
have disturbed you, if briefly

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:20:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  prop up your 
  bi-focals, M'am--it's all there--recently, too
  
  and, 
  FTR,re-think tryin' to manipulate me: terman issue 'old', then, 
  (try to) force it to become redundant--you'll cement your combative reputation 
  only at your own expense
  
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:56:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Where and how? Evidence please?
Your ongoing consistent accusations are a bit old 
Gary; you need to give a foundation for these
accusations. So show me how this scripture is 
manipulated and evidence that this is clearly proven.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  you 
  manipulate it too, as clearly proven
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:17 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
||
I quote..scripture as written in the KJV 
Bible
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




Read what I said again JD and stop putting words in my 
mouth
I was not interpreting Matt 7:11 to mean this; I merely 
said that ppl in churches that believe in the spiritual
gifts use this verse to encourage people to seek the 
baptism in the Holy Spirit. This is not my view, it is
theirs... You sure don't read too accurately do 
you JD?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:48:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Your view that Mattt 7:11 is talking about the reception of the baptism 
  of the Holy spirit is the most recent case in point.
  
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Where and how? Evidence please?
Your ongoing consistent accusations are a bit old 
Gary; you need to give a foundation for these
accusations. So show me how this scripture is 
manipulated and evidence that this is clearly proven.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  you 
  manipulate it too, as clearly proven
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:17 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
||
I quote..scripture as written in the KJV 
Bible
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 4:52:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

He is certainly not nearly as disruptive as at least two others on this forum. I jwill tnot refer kto them by dname but they probably know who they are? 

jd
cd: Tell me about it that CBlain and CLance need to learn control:-)

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



IFO have thought of DaveH as one of the more discrimitating contributors to TT.Should he be invited back with an accompanying apology and full complicity?

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: December 17, 2005 16:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


How come you kicked DaveH off? What he was saying was true. (See red below)Am I going next?
Blainerb

That is unexcusable behavior in my opinion.  ??? unexcusable behavior..what's that mean? Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before discussing my behavior as being unexcusable. FWIWNot only do I consider your behavior to be less than stellar as well, your opinion as an anti-Mormon doesn't mean a lot to me, Perry. You are simply too biased against Mormonism to have valid argument worthy of consideration. Furthermore, you've made a public statement announcing that you are going to grind your ax against Mormonism. So your actions come as no surprise.  But as the moderator of TT, you are correct.I should be more respectful of your wishes when you request that I take the discussion off-line. And for that, I owe you an apology...but am not sure why, as one of your t
 wo posts yesterday simply asked me if we could take the discussion off-line. (And noI did not want to take it or this one off-line either.)  The post below however, firmly requested such.  It's just a little difficult for me to do so when you post whatever you want, and prevent me from doing the same. I don't know if you have noticed, but IMO I've not treated you any worse than you've treated me. You just happen to hold the big stick. So..IF you have rules to be obeyed on TT.post them, and when I feel you are violating them, I'll just pitch it back to you. If on the other hand, I violate them first, then bring it to my attention. Contrary to Deans assertion that I'm a crybaby over this.that's nonsense. I'm just going to mirror back what you send my way. So far, I've only heard of one firm ruleno ad-homs..and your request to ta
ke the sexual threads off-Forum a month or so ago.which I did. I think your action on that one was a bit too restrictive, as you publicly made some false accusations that were not resolved. Which is why I violated your desire to keep this last one private. You have made false accusations and refused to back them up with factual quotes to support your position. Then before the topic can be properly discussed, you ban further posts.  Do you want to make up new rules for TT, Perry? If not...is the ad-hom rule going to be adequate, or are you going to continue banning discussions for no other reason than you think they are disruptive? In the past, disruptive posts haven't seemed to trouble you too much. Now that they are a bit closer to home, you seem to be a little overly sensitive to them though. The question is why do you feel the need to ban topics if there are no complaints o
f ad-homs? BTWI'm copying this to Blaine, as I suspect he will be curious as to what is discussed related to Mormonism off-line, and as an LDS TTer, I think there is some pertinence to him in this exchange...I hope that is OK with you.  I suspect a few other TTers would also like to know what's going on, but you've pretty well eliminated that possibility, Perry.



In a message dated 12/15/2005 7:26:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Blaine, Try reading through the NT and replace every occurrence of the word "cross" with "star". The text becomes meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part of the Chrsitian landscape, directly from scripture. It has meaning and value beyond merely an instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our freedom in Christ. The star does not. The atonement did not happen in Gethsemane, it did not happen at the resurrection. It happened on the cross. Our Lord cried out "it is finished" at the moment the debt we can never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try to change that is to deny scripture.Perry

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath








Terry


cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting that you are disagreeing with?

I realize that the commandments were for the children of Israel. I was never under the law and am not under the law now. I have no obligation to keep the Sabbath. I am free from the law.

Terry

cd: Then why were you condemned to eternal death before salvation-as the breaking of the law condemns. Yes, we are above the law thru Christ but doesn't the Bible teach us that if we sin the full weight of the law falls back upon us.Why now is the law written on the hearts of all men-your too,why thenisitnot binding to you. You may not sin and be above the law but that does not mean the law doesn't exist for you-it is there waiting.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings?

Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ...









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 5:04:17 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE "...


Blainerb: To "be perfect," it seems one would first have to become perfect--which may take more time for some than others.I do OK in following the admonitions of Jesus Christ, and I believe I do better each day--but I am after all a son of Adam and Eve, from whom I inherited imperfections.

cd:Christians are son of Christ -the lost are sons of AE and will have no inheritance.


In a message dated 12/16/2005 9:03:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." 

Notice it does not say become perfect it says BE - Present TENSE
How are you doing?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




You are entitled to your opinion, Lance, however, I do not see that such Mormon beliefs as you have outlined detract from traditional Christianity--they do go beyond it, but I see no reason this should be an arrow in the side of Christians who are trying to live Christianity as they understand it.I see nothing unhallowed in the God-was-a-man-who-became-perfect beliefs of the Mormon Church--in fact, it seems to be quite a lofty idea, aimed at improving one's motivationto become perfect and more god-like. As Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Do you not intend to keep this commandment, Lance? 
Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat





If Christ had not been nailed to the cross, His death would have meant
nothing. Prophecy said He had to be lifted up.

Terry

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  Then what do youthink Gethsemane was all about? He shed blood
then, as well as on the cross, and was in such an agony as to almost
die. Dying was not the only sacrifice he made. He suffered for sin
in Gethsemane,he died on Calvary, in order to overcome death, and made
it possible for us to do the same. He had to die, but I am not so sure
it had to be on the cross.
  
  In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:59:53 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  






  -
Original Message - 
  From:
  
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent:
12/16/2005 6:17:55 PM 
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] sweat
  
  
  
  
  Hmm, good points, Kevin, but I doubt there is really a
discrepancy or contradiction, otherwise how are you going to explain
the agony of Gethsemene? What he suffered on the cross was more
physical, which lead to his death--but there obviously was the agony of
Gethsemene, wherein he suffered for the sins of mankind, to such an
extent as to come justshort of dying. I am not sure why dying had to
take place on the cross, eventually, unless it has something to do with
overcoming death--which had to be done in order to overcome the effects
of Adam's transgression and fall, wherein death was brought into the
world. That would make sense to me--but let's face it, the entire
matter of his being able to reconcile man with God after the fall of
Adam which brought sin and death
into the world was a great miracle. I am not sure any man fully
comprehends it. We see in part through the glass darkly now, but
someday we will see more clearly, hopefully.nbs p;
  
  cd: The simple fact that Jesus walked
out of the garden and failed to walk away from the cross (yes,I Know
He rose 3 days later) but he had to be carried from the cross should
prove the crosswas life threaten not the garden-In the Garden he was
praying hard for the believers and the world-so hard that blood fell as
drops of sweat would fall.John chapter 17 is the prayer he prayed in
the Garden -you should read it-good stuff. There have been other
Believers-through out history-who have also prayedin this mannerhard
and had blood also come out of their pours as sweat would.
  
  In a message dated 12/16/2005 1:29:55 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time,

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles






On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Dylan land..where 'the whip that's keeping you in line 
  doesn't make him jump,Say he's hard-of-hearin', say that he's a chump, 
  he's out of step with reality 
  as you try 
  to test his nerve because he doesn't pay no tribute 
  
  to the 
  kingdom that you serve.He's the property of JesusResent him to the 
  boneYou got something better, yehYou've got a heart of 
  stone'

Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath





Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
As for the Commandments being only for the Jews
you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast
days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to
Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to
learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the
obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping
it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN
2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings?
  

Leviticus 27:34 THESE are the commandments which the Lord commanded
Moses for the children of Israel! That is not me, Dean. I am
not a Jew. I have two commandments, given to me by my Savior. "Love
God more than anything or anybody, and love others as myself."
Absolutely nothing in there about Saturday or Wednesday, or holiday or
rainy day. I can even eat pork and shrimp and rabbit and all that
stuff that is against the law for Isrealites. I have great freedom
along with great responsibility. Please don't load me up with stuff
that was never meant for me. No Jew except Christ has ever kept the
law. What makes you think I could? 
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism: some important differences

BLOOD is the key word, I think--which he shed in large quantitiesin Gethsemane--apparently more than he actually shed on Calvary

Sweat AS IF drops of blood.Isn't this thewording of the biblical text? I don't know that there was any blood in Gethsemaneexcept by thehand ofPeter. But, if there was , it was "drops." After the garden, He was beaten nearly to death and on the cross, we have the wounds in his hands and feet, the blood from the thorny crown and the wound to His side. Blaine, really, you couldn't be more mistaken on this one. But more than this, the First Scriptures do not attach atonement significance to Gethsemane.

So, for me, I have learned from the Mormon representatives several issues that separate us :

1. They have a "right church" view of the Christian assembly and membership in the "right church" is critical to what happens in the next life.

2. The grace that saves is neither separated from works of law, nor is it unmerited in that sense. Mormonism is a works salvationist religion.

3 The Mormon view of Jewish history is vastly different from the Jewish view of Jewish history - especially as it applies to the "lost tribes," but, also as it applies to the Jewish teachings of blood sacrifice for sin, the failings of a law-basedrelationship with God and the importance of the death of Christ from a Jewish point of view ... crtical differences, all.

4.Mormon scripture cannot be verified by anyone other than the Mormon faithful.

5. The biblical doctrine (the "Frist Scriptures") teaches a very different Jesus than that of the Mormon religion.

6. The "atonement" doctrine between Christianity and Mormonism is markedly different. This difference can be most easily seen as one Faith gives emphasis to the crossand the shedding of blood while the other does not. If the two representatives of Mormonism are typical, those in the Christian Faith may assume that the notion of the shedding of blood is not understood as it relates to the Law, to the cross or to the continuing forgiveness of the saint.

7. They cannot answer questions as to the differences between the First Scriptures (written and given to a church the Mormons believe to be in good standing - before the "apostasy") and the those scriptures given some 1800 years later. The differences are remarkablein termsquanity and substance. TheMormon notion that the First Chruch wasthe Right Church demands that the teaching of that first church is both completely revealed and correct. There should be no difference between the First Scriptures and the Mormon seconds.

8. Mormon organization and church terminology is markedly different from the biblical church or the pre-apostate church of history. If we beleive that God "did it right" the first time, in regards to the church, there should be no reason for any differences between the Mormon church and scripture and that of the First Church and the First Scriptures.

Note: it is not my intention to outline all of the difference, only those that are of significance to me, those that make the Mormon Faith an impossible religion to defend as "Christian" from my point of view. I would love the opportunity to share in a public discussion of these issues.

How does this affect their place in the sight of God? My personal view is this: Joe Smith knew full well that he was an imposture. Few others would have this knowledge. I do believe that God will take this into consideration as the judge of such things. Only because of the truth of the incarnation and the unmerited nature of grace do any of us have a chance at all. God is bigger than any of our failings and the name of Jesus need not be uttered to have redeeming value.

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

BLOOD is the key word, I think--which he shed in large quantitiesin Gethsemane--apparently more than he actually shed on Calvary. When he returns he will be wearing red--right? This is a symbol of his blood drenching his entire body, which it did not do on the cross. In fact, other than the wounds in his hands, feet, and sides, little blood was shed on the Calvary cross.
Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles



You are not being honest, here. This is the specific exchange: 

You are reaching, here. What is the difference to Judy between good works and "normal christianity." Is the giving of good gifts something we do (ala Matt 7:11). jd

Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit but these people are already born again believers. jt

Your explanation is used to argue against points that I have made. Why would you use angument against me that you do not believe. So much for illumination.

jd



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

Read what I said again JD and stop putting words in my mouth
I was not interpreting Matt 7:11 to mean this; I merely said that ppl in churches that believe in the spiritual
gifts use this verse to encourage people to seek the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This is not my view, it is
theirs... You sure don't read too accurately do you JD?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:48:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Your view that Mattt 7:11 is talking about the reception of the baptism of the Holy spirit is the most recent case in point.

jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Where and how? Evidence please?
Your ongoing consistent accusations are a bit old Gary; you need to give a foundation for these
accusations. So show me how this scripture is manipulated and evidence that this is clearly proven.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

you manipulate it too, as clearly proven

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:17 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

||
I quote..scripture as written in the KJV Bible
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


Have you dealt with the puzzle correctly? I want to say "yes" except that I do not understand "c c".  Perhaps you missed the point. 

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







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/17/2005 4:52:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

He is certainly not nearly as disruptive as at least two others on this forum. I jwill tnot refer kto them by dname but they probably know who they are? 

jd
cd: Tell me about it that CBlain and CLance need to learn control:-)

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



IFO have thought of DaveH as one of the more discrimitating contributors to TT.Should he be invited back with an accompanying apology and full complicity?

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: December 17, 2005 16:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


How come you kicked DaveH off? What he was saying was true. (See red below)Am I going next?
Blainerb

That is unexcusable behavior in my opinion.  ??? unexcusable behavior..what's that mean? Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before discussing my behavior as being unexcusable. FWIWNot only do I consider your behavior to be less than stellar as well, your opinion as an anti-Mormon doesn't mean a lot to me, Perry. You are simply too biased against Mormonism to have valid argument worthy of consideration. Furthermore, you've made a public statement announcing that you are going to grind your ax against Mormonism. So your actions come as no surprise.  But as the moderator of TT, you are correct.I should be more respectful of your wishes when you request that I take the discussion off-line. And for that, I owe you an apology...but am not sure why, as one of your t
 wo posts yesterday simply asked me if we could take the discussion off-line. (And noI did not want to take it or this one off-line either.)  The post below however, firmly requested such.  It's just a little difficult for me to do so when you post whatever you want, and prevent me from doing the same. I don't know if you have noticed, but IMO I've not treated you any worse than you've treated me. You just happen to hold the big stick. So..IF you have rules to be obeyed on TT.post them, and when I feel you are violating them, I'll just pitch it back to you. If on the other hand, I violate them first, then bring it to my attention. Contrary to Deans assertion that I'm a crybaby over this.that's nonsense. I'm just going to mirror back what you send my way. So far, I've only heard of one firm ruleno ad-homs..and your request to ta
 ke the sexual threads off-Forum a month or so ago.which I did. I think your action on that one was a bit too restrictive, as you publicly made some false accusations that were not resolved. Which is why I violated your desire to keep this last one private. You have made false accusations and refused to back them up with factual quotes to support your position. Then before the topic can be properly discussed, you ban further posts.  Do you want to make up new rules for TT, Perry? If not...is the ad-hom rule going to be adequate, or are you going to continue banning discussions for no other reason than you think they are disruptive? In the past, disruptive posts haven't seemed to trouble you too much. Now that they are a bit closer to home, you seem to be a little overly sensitive to them though. The question is why do you feel the need to ban topics if there are no complaints 
o f ad-homs? BTWI'm copying this to Blaine, as I suspect he will be curious as to what is discussed related to Mormonism off-line, and as an LDS TTer, I think there is some pertinence to him in this exchange...I hope that is OK with you.  I suspect a few other TTers would also like to know what's going on, but you've pretty well eliminated that possibility, Perry.



In a message dated 12/15/2005 7:26:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Blaine, Try reading through the NT and replace every occurrence of the word "cross" with "star". The text becomes meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part of the Chrsitian landscape, directly from scripture. It has meaning and value beyond merely an instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our freedom in Christ. The star does not. The atonement did not happen in Gethsemane, it did not happen at the resurrection. It happened on the cross. Our Lord cried out "it is finished" at the moment the debt we can never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try to change that is to deny scripture.Perry

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles


moved to hard copy and saved to my journal. 

Excellent stuff.

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



On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Dylan land..where 'the whip that's keeping you in line doesn't make him jump,Say he's hard-of-hearin', say that he's a chump, he's out of step with reality 
as you try to test his nerve because he doesn't pay no tribute 
to the kingdom that you serve.He's the property of JesusResent him to the boneYou got something better, yehYou've got a heart of stone'

Re: [TruthTalk] The law of Moses and other laws of God

Dean, I would love to see you try to establish this from scripture:

-- Original message -- From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean Moore wrote:

As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings?Leviticus 27:34 THESE are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel! That is not me, Dean. I am not a Jew. I have two commandments, given to me by my Savior. "Love God more than anything or anybody, and love others as myself." Absolutely nothing in there about Saturday or Wednesday, or holiday or rainy day. I can even eat pork and shrimp and rabbit and all that stuff that is against the law for Isrealites. I have
great freedom along with great responsibility. Please don't load me up with stuff that was never meant for me. No Jew except Christ has ever kept the law. What makes you think I could? Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




I see it as a statement rather than an 
argument. In churches I have been in Matt 7:11 is used this 
way.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:42:54 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  You are not being honest, here. This is the specific 
  exchange: 
  
  You are reaching, here. 
  What is the difference to Judy between good works and "normal 
  christianity." Is the giving of good gifts something we do (ala 
  Matt 7:11). jd
  
  Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to 
  encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit but these people are already 
  born again believers. jt
  
  Your explanation is used to argue against points that 
  I have made. Why would you use angument against me that you do not 
  believe. So much for illumination.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Read what I said again JD and stop putting words in 
my mouth
I was not interpreting Matt 7:11 to mean this; I 
merely said that ppl in churches that believe in the spiritual
gifts use this verse to encourage people to seek 
the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This is not my view, it 
is
theirs... You sure don't read too accurately 
do you JD?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:48:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Your view that Mattt 7:11 is talking about the reception of the 
  baptism of the Holy spirit is the most recent case in point.
  
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Where and how? Evidence please?
Your ongoing consistent accusations are a bit 
old Gary; you need to give a foundation for these
accusations. So show me how this 
scripture is manipulated and evidence that this is clearly 
proven.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  you 
  manipulate it too, as clearly proven
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:17 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
||
I quote..scripture as written in the KJV 
Bible
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




Really JD?? 
So is your journal full of gibberish or is this 
the exception?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:50:16 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  moved to hard copy and saved to my journal. 
  
  Excellent stuff.
  
  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Dylan land..where 'the whip that's 
  keeping you in line doesn't make him jump,Say he's hard-of-hearin', 
  say that he's a chump, he's out of step with reality 
  
  as you 
  try to test his nerve because he doesn't pay no tribute 
  
  to the 
  kingdom that you serve.He's the property of JesusResent him to 
  the boneYou got something better, yehYou've got a heart 
  of stone'
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Moderator comment

2005-12-17 Thread Charles Perry Locke



Blaine, why do you cintinue to comment on a thread that has been banned? No 
more posts on this topic, please.


Perry


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment **
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:12:50 EST


Oh, yeah, now I remember writing that.  I should have just said I was
holding my breath, huh?  :)
Blainerb



In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:54:01 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Can you print the entire context, please?
Blainerb



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://us.f537.mail.yahoo.com/ym/[EMAIL PROTECTED])   
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00  PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://us.f537.mail.yahoo.com/ym/[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Izzy's sex  life

Hi Izzy, I was looking through some of my old e-mails and  came upon
one with the above subject title--jus' thought I'd let you know  I am still
waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete  description . .  .

Blainerb


[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:03:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Since you have been asked to stop stirring the pot
And some subjects have been identified as OFF LIMITS
I have declined to comment
But since you guys can not leave it alone

I was refering to your PRIVATE email off list to a member of this  list
stating you were
waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . .  .


First of all, I don't recall writing to anyone in  private.  If I did, it 
may
have been because I had not noticed it  was private.  Who was it that got 
the

letter in private, Kevin?   Are you the one?  It must have been you, or
Dean--both of you have  brought this up--and if it was private why did you 
post it

contrary to the  rules?.

 Secondly,  I vaguely remember making  that comment, but I don't recall 
the

context in which I made it.   Can you print the entire context, please?
Blainerb










--
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] sweat

2005-12-17 Thread Charles Perry Locke

Blaine, I honestly believe you are baiting Christians on TT, or else you 
truly have not read the Bible.

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] sweat
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:36:58 EST

BLOOD is the key word, I think--which he shed  in large quantities in
Gethsemane--apparently more than he actually shed on  Calvary.  When he 
returns he
will be wearing red--right?  This is a  symbol of his blood drenching his 
entire
body,  which it did not do on the  cross.  In fact, other than the wounds 
in

his hands, feet, and sides,  little blood was shed on the Calvary cross.
Blainerb

In a message dated 12/16/2005 9:06:53 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Blaine, your  question reveals why you donât understand Christian 
reverence

for the  Cross.  Jesus had to die on the cross as the payment for our sins.
He was the innocent, perfect sacrificial Passover lamb, slain for the sins 
of

the world.  Just as the Jews, who were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, had to
paint the blood of the Passover lamb on their doorposts to make the 
Destroyer

pass by them during judgment on that horrible night in Egypt when all the
firstborn were slain,  Jesus serves as our blood sacrifice, that we might  
be
spared death for our slavery to sin, and deliverance from sinâjust as the 
 Jews
were delivered from Egypt.  Jesus, the Firstborn, who was without  sin, was 
the
only one qualified to be that perfect holy sacrifice for our  sins.  It was 
His

Blood, shed on the Cross (nowhere else, because THAT is  where He actually
was slain), that redeems all those who take cover under it,  just as the 
Jews
did under their doorposts.  THAT is why satan HATES the  mention of THE 
BLOOD OF

CHRISTâbecause THAT is what OVERCAME his evil devices  and has sealed his
eternal doom, as well as the Believerâs eternal deliverance  from 
damnation.  May

God help you to understand this.   Izzy

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat






CPL,what's 
your perspective on (just) this question?


On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:48:32 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:..you are baiting Christians on TT..elseyoutruly have 
not read the [KJV?].||

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles


Take a pill, Judy. Near as I can figure, you either don't like Dylan or you can't sing. My journal is acompilation of those things spoken or written that effected me, emotionally. They are statements that struck me as powerful. I have found that when I need a "pick me up," I can sit down and read this journal. I have found that these statements or thoughts have the same effect on me now, as they did way back when. 

Here ae a few examples, sense you asked: 


One of the girls in my youth class made this comment about a classmate who had been killed in a car accident: "I know she has gone to heaven and God is so lucky to have her there." 

Without compassion, authority is tyranny" (Chief Bannion, The District)

God's proclamation that he is the great I AM is not so much a statement of His eternity as it is a statement of His dependability -- Gloria Copeland

Coming to the Lord is always an inside job - pastor Kieth

God thinks you are special - just like everyone else" Terry Clifton 9/19/04

If you always do what you have always done, you will always be what you've always been. Steve Spencer.



Pain is mandatory -- misery is optional -- Jody and Richard the Prophet

Love is an activity, not a responce  Jeff Mabee (5/21/98)

Before Christ, I practice sin and committed righteousness. After Christ, I practice righteousness and commit sin. me 5/30/98

I want to learn God through experience, not theory. 

I think God is crying out and shouting to us "Don't just do something, stand there." Henry Backaby

Hold your partner in honor is the key to a great marriage. 

True worship is the exchange of life for life worship leader at Valley Christian (11/99)

Times change but people don't -- or is it better said, they won't ? me again

Wisdom has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with peace, gentleness, and mercy James 3:17

Humilty is always the result of having actually encountered God 

In Christ, you are more than you have become pastor Larry Briney


jd






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

Really JD?? 
So is your journal full of gibberish or is this the exception?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:50:16 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

moved to hard copy and saved to my journal. 

Excellent stuff.

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:22:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Dylan land..where 'the whip that's keeping you in line doesn't make him jump,Say he's hard-of-hearin', say that he's a chump, he's out of step with reality 
as you try to test his nerve because he doesn't pay no tribute 
to the kingdom that you serve.He's the property of JesusResent him to the boneYou got something better, yehYou've got a heart of stone'
 judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles



I wrote a post outlining several differences between Mormonism and Christianity - today. Did that post? it didn't come to me and comcast does not save what was written.

Could someone please send it back to me. Thanks

jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




CPL, Are [Bible] 
readers whobelieve that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS 
for the already converted'sums up the Law and Prophets' 
Christian/s?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ||
  

Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to 
encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... 
jt
||

--

for reference:
7:12So in everything, do [the good]to others 
[t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the 
Prophets.

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




..do Bible readers 
'camp' around theological error in your neck of the woods?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  CPL, Are [Bible] 
  readers whobelieve that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS 
  for the already converted'sums up the Law and Prophets' 
  Christian/s?
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
||

  
  Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to 
  encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... 
  jt
  ||
  
  --
  
  for reference:
  7:12So in everything, do [the good]to others 
  [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the 
  Prophets.

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




..while they (we 
know they:) ain't Protestants, are they 
Christians?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..do Bible 
  readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the 
  woods?
  
  On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
CPL, Are 
[Bible] readers whobelieve that JC taught that encouraging the baptism 
of the HS for the already converted'sums up the Law and Prophets' 
Christian/s?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  ||
  

Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used 
to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... 
jt
||

--

for reference:
7:12So in everything, do [the good]to others 
[t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the 
Prophets.

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




..if so, (we know 
they ain't classic Protestants, but :)are they 
Christians?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..do Bible 
  readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the 
  woods?
  
  On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
CPL, Are 
[Bible] readers whobelieve that JC taught that encouraging the baptism 
of the HS for the already converted'sums up the Law and Prophets' 
Christian/s?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  ||
  

Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used 
to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... 
jt
||

--

for reference:
7:12So in everything, do [the good]to others 
[t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the 
Prophets.

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles






On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:16:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..while they (we 
  know they:) ain't Protestants, are they 
  Christians?
  
  On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..do Bible 
readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the 
woods?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  CPL, Are 
  [Bible] readers whobelieve that JC taught that encouraging the 
  baptism of the HS for the already converted'sums up the Law and 
  Prophets' Christian/s?
  
  On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
||

  
  Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used 
  to encourage people to seek the Baptism in 
  the 
  Holy Spirit... jt
  ||
  
  --
  
  for reference:
  7:12So in everything, do [the good]to others 
  [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the 
  Prophets.

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles




..mercy me (the 
same question again,Bro--but did you ever wonder 
how much 
error actually qualifies Bible readers as trulyChristian? 
:)

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:25:36 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ||
  
  On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:16:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..while they 
(we know they:) ain't Protestants, are they 
Christians?

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..do Bible 
  readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the 
  woods?
  
  On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
CPL, Are 
[Bible] readers whobelieve that JC taught that encouraging the 
baptism of the HS for the already converted'sums up the Law and 
Prophets' Christian/s?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  ||
  

Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is 
used to encourage people to seek the Baptism in 
the 
Holy Spirit... jt
||

--

for reference:
7:12So in everything, do [the good]to 
others [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the 
Law and the Prophets.

Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles