Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud
A reading from 1.1, Dogmatics, Word of God, p107 got me to thinking : If we attach our understanding of scripture to scripture, if we, then, canonize "scripture," we make scripture tradition instead of what God intended it to be -- His self-revelation to man. If our understanding does not pass away at our passing, it will die in time - an aspect of the consequence of the passing of time. The tradition will die - making room for another.Ir may take hundreds of years, but it will pass. But scripture will continue as time and a multitude of passing traditions have testified. "After any exegesis propounded in it, even the very best, it has to realise afresh the distinction between text and commentary and to let the text speak again without ... hindrance, so that it will experience the lordship of this free power and find in the Bible the partner or counterpart which the Church must find in it [the Bible] if it is to take the living successio apostolorum seriously." (Barth , .107) [emphasis mine]. To put it simply -- we should ever be in the hunt for an unbiased reading and rereading of the divine text.More than anything else placed in the church, the biblical record is the successor to the apostles.[And God used the Church to collect and order this Bible. That is why the historical Church should not be ignored.] If one thinks Barth did not have the highest regard for the Bible as the Bible -- it is becauseshe has not spent one minute considering his comments about same. And how does he defend the Bible as the Bible? "..the Bible is the Canon just because it is so." Remarkable. We evanglicals have to argue the Bible's validity into continued existence. Barth simply accepted it as a matter of faith. Let's send him to hell for that , shall we ?? !!! jd
Re: [TruthTalk] DOCTRINAL DISPUTES SELDOM (DEFINE PLEASE) HAPPEN
LDS history, Blainer. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 22:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DOCTRINAL DISPUTES SELDOM (DEFINE PLEASE) HAPPEN Are we talking about my personal history, or the history of the LDS Church? I have volumes on the latter. Only one autobiog on myself. Blainerb In a message dated 12/19/2005 5:04:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blainer: Just how well (seriously) do you know your own history? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 00:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE "... Most Bishops have so much to do that they have little time to answer petty questions to resolve doctrinal disputes. I would not take a problem of that nature to my Bishop. No one I know would. Doctrinal disputes seldom happen, since the BoM and the DC are very clear. I know this sounds weird, but it happens to be true. If I have a doctrinal misunderstanding, I just study it out in my own mind, and the answer usually presents itself via the Spirit of the Lord. Blainerb In a message dated 12/18/2005 9:36:36 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine, if you and a fellow mormon disagreed on the meaning of a verse, you would go to your Bishop, he would tell you what it means, and regardless of the answer, you both would acceot that, am I right? If not, how would you resolve it?
Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David
There's NO BLASPHEMING goin' on, David! That which, IMO, is IN QUESTION HERE, has nothing to do with your facility as a rationalist, (i.e. your back and forth with John over logic via syntax) rather, it's your own discerning 'heart'(?). You still don't know yourself, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 15:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David John, if you have a problem with inductive logic, substitute blasphemy everywhere you see my word error and I stand behind those comments just the same. That should be obvious to you because the word I used was a more general word that included blasphemy as an error. John, you changed words when you wrote: One most definitely can be in error without being blasphemous. But one cannot blaspheme without being guilty of blasphemy. You are completely changing the discussion now by making irrelevant logical statements and dropping the word accusing from what I had said. Considering someone guilty of blasphemy and accusing someone of blasphemy is not the same thing. That was my point. Does this distinction escape your mind? I said nothing to repudiate the idea that one cannot blaspheme without being guilty of blasphemy. Your original statement was, One simply cannot tell another to stop the blasphemy without, at the same time and in the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy. Do you see how you changed the word accusing to being guilty of? I can indeed tell someone to stop the blasphemy without being an accuser. I'm talking about an attitude of the heart. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David -- Original message -- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: techniccally is the word of a legalist justifying what he has actually done while pretending to be fully consistent. One simply cannot tell another to stop the blasphemy without, at the same time and in the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy. There is a distinction between holding to an opinion about someone being in error and accusing someone of an error. Here we go again -- David introducing words and phrases into the discussion that were not a part of the originial intent. I said this: One simply cannot tell another to stop the blasphemy without, at the same time and in the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy If you would stick to the very wording I used, that would be good. Error includes any number of categories including blasphemy. Error and blasphemy are not the same -- one is much broader in meaning and definition that the other. One most definitely can be in error without being blasphemous. But one cannot blaspheme without being guilty of blasphemy. None of the following has anything to do with what I said above. . Part of this distinction has to do with the attitude of our heart. It is important to understand this distinction if we are to correct others in love. Many times my children fall into error. If I took the approach of accusing them of error, it could crush their spirit. Instead, I can hold to the opinion that they are in error and seek to correct the problem in love. There is indeed a difference between working to stop blasphemy and accusing someone of blasphemy. Even when Jesus warned about blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, he did not accuse anyone in particular. He held to an opinion that those who confused the good work of the Holy Spirit with the work of Satan were in great danger of unforgiveable blasphemy. You might also consider the woman taken in adultery. Jesus held to the opinion that she had sinned, yet he told the woman that he did not condemn (accuse) her. In other words, Jesus held to the opinion that she was wrong to commit adultery without accusing the woman of adultery. I hope you understand this distinction. It is an important one and not merely the rhetoric of a legalistic sophist. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
Re: [TruthTalk] Do believers really disagree on anything?
Rom 10:4 'The Messiah, you see, is the goal of the law, so that covenant membership may be available for all who believe.' This is where God's purposes had been heading all along. David speaks of 'the (his/David's interpretation) truthful aspects of this passage that I (meaning David's interpretation) apprehend'. Might there be, David, a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING on your part of ANY IMPORTANT TEACHING in Scripture whatsoever? IFO could live with a yes/no. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 15:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Do believers really disagree on anything? John wrote: You believe that the phrase Christ is the end of the law .. means one thing and I believe it means something entirely different. Two opposing undertandings. Which one is that which is a misunderstanding? I don't think you understand my perspective of Romans 10:4 if you think that you believe it means something entirely different than I do. The misunderstanding comes into play with your not apprehending the truthful aspects of this passage that I apprehend. In other words, you misunderstand me and therefore think you disagree with me when you really do not. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance
There is NO MILLENIUM! We are where HEAVENwill be. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 23:24 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance If the earth was so great it wouldnt need redeeming, now would it? Until the Millenium, its nothing to write home about. Kind of like alphabet soup; some good stuff, mostly losers. As my husband often says, We arent in heaven yet. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:34 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance You are a tripartate who has a disdain for things of the earth which by extension indicates that you do not apprehend the significance of the Incarnation and the humanity of Jesus. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 10:27 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance You didn't answer my question I am not asking Gary, John, or Bill You say it below - I want to know what you mean. judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:17:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where does the dualism come from, you ask? Ask Judy where it comes from. I notice it, Gary identifies it, so do John and Bill. OOOPS! You wanna make this just about me, doncha? When I speak well of you Judy, I truly mean it! It's you who keeps on addressing the rest of us minions from your infallible perch. From: Judy Taylor Your response to the narrow path and the strait gate is as follows - why? Where does the dualism come from? A the good old dualistic narrow path! 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] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David
'Twas Perry who brought up this film. He did not end up an 'embittered soldier'. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 23:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David The Scent of a Woman Lance? Is that what you've been watching lately? (I do love the tango scene!) But do you really want to end up like that lost, embittered soldier? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David HUZZAH!! David has loosed me from condemnation! Actually David, it may well be Judy who misunderstood. IMO both of you misapprehend Jn 16 1 Cor 2 but, another conversation for another prophet. . - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 14:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David Lance wrote: ... why don't you outline, utilizing texts and interpretation just how you support this 'non-accusation' that not you but, God is judging me for? Your last comment indicates you have misunderstood me. What I meant is that you are under God himself. You are not somebody who is under my authority; therefore, I do not judge you. God does. In other words, you answer to God, not to me. As for outlining how you have blasphemed, I have already done so. Jesus promises Judy the Holy Spirit, to be her teacher and comforter, to lead her and guide her into all truth. You rebuked her, telling her that she had no such guarantee in Scripture. Later in private correspondence, you told me that what you meant was that she had failed to apprehend truth in a particular area. I don't have a problem with you saying that. Apparently what you wrote was communicating a blasphemy that you did not intend. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
Blessings indeed, Judy. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 23:56 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] For Terry Judy, if speaking the Truth is love, then you deserve a crown of glory. Blessings to you and yours, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:57 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry Terry, Thank you for your detailed response ... I would like to have an image that is pleasing to everyone and am truly sorry that I have missed the mark with this. I don't havemoney to show ppl love; and what I do have is constantly mocked and maligned. I never wanted to get into this back and forth volley of strife but I guess when we lay with the dogs we get up with fleas. I'm really sorry that what the Lord has done in me so far is not up to standard. All I really have to give ismy time and love for God's Word. Actually I should - like Christine - be spending my time more wisely, especially at this time of year so I will follow her example and sign off for now. . Wishing everyone a joyous holiday season, judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:56:34 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy Taylor wrote: Terry, You wrote a very explicit comment about me personally earlier today which caused me to respond with the following question. If you are walking in the kind of love you accuse me of being void of ... Then couldyou please answer the following for me. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love you say you don't see in me - What would it look like? Can you describe it please? Does any person demonstrate it on TT? judyt If I could see it I could possibly describe it Judy, but I cannot see it. This concerns you so you obviously want to show people you love or care about them. The thing is, it just doesn't come through. I can see that you know your Bible. I can agree with much of what you post. I can see that you try to live a life pleasing to the Lord. The only thing missing is the love for others. Let me throw out a couple of possibilities for you to consider that might help. I am not suggesting that you stop being you. I am suggesting that you change your pattern a little to let others see the care you have in your heart. I would suggest first, that you need not respond to every post. Let some of them go by without a comment. Second, you might ask why a person came to his or her conclusion rather than just telling them flat out that they do not know what they are talking about. (I seldom know what G or Bill is talking about, but I seldom comment on anything they say) Surprisingly, I think Bill cares about the people here, maybe as much as Dean does. I see John and Izzy at their best and at their worst. Both of them , I believe, make a decision to be kinder and more loving, but their button eventually gets pushed and they start replying as you do.I know personally of David Millers love. He offered me financial help that ,thank the Lord, I did not need at the time, but the offer was sincere. He wanted to help me. That makes it easy to love him, cause like Christ, he loved me first. Marlin wanted to help his neighbor a while back, so no need to question the love in his heart. The others on the list have probably not impressed me one way or the other. I choose to think the best of them.We all have a long way to go in this area, Judy. You are not in this boat by yourself. None of us has reached the other shore. I had to peek around my beam to write what I did. Please think about what I've said. I meant to help, even if the short term result is hurtful. I will be praying for you.Terry 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 Sent: 12/17/2005 5:18:02 PM Subject: 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 cd: You and DaveH both mention Jesus Christ but it is not the Christ on the Bible-as was Smiths Christ not of God.If he was inspired then Smiths word would reflect Christ words they do not do so.Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from that is Smith is speaking of another Christ.Simular to the Jesus that RCC teachs-They made unto themselves a Christ that allows for Idol worship and sell him to people for attendance to their Church. - 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] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ...
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 11:24:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE "... In a message dated 12/17/2005 5:09:12 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. 1 Cor 15:44-52 cd:Christians are son of Christ -the lost are sons of AE and will have no inheritance. Where does it say that, Dean? We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, who inherit the conditions of the fall. Are you an exception? ICor 15:22:"For as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive". I no longer have eternal death as I am of Christ not Adam. Also read 1 Cor 15:44-52-because of Christ I am restored-that makes me an exception.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Dean
cd: I don't think Judy needs help from anybody-as She has the Holy Spirit and some lionesses hunt alone.. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 9:10:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Dean Not hardly but I have to say he is an encouragement because healong with the other brothers you eschew are seeking the narrow path that leads to life On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:55:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interpretation of PS:Where is Kevin?? Help, Kevin! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 08:47 Subject: [TruthTalk] For Dean I'll pray for your localchurch home pilgrimage also .. thanks for sharing. judyt PS: Where is Kevin?? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
RE: [TruthTalk] For Dean
cd: Thank you Sister. Knowing Kevin he is out preaching as a lot is happening in his neck of the woods. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 8:50:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] For Dean I'll pray for your localchurch home pilgrimage also .. thanks for sharing. judyt PS: Where is Kevin?? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Amen Dean! UNTIL YOUR RCC COMMENTS! IMO you should stay with what y'all understand. Further, IMO, y'all should press the MC on the very central considerations raised AND camp there 'til they know what evangelical 'discernment' is on such. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 5:18:02 PM Subject: 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 cd: You and DaveH both mention Jesus Christ but it is not the Christ on the Bible-as was Smiths Christ not of God.If he was inspired then Smiths word would reflect Christ words they do not do so.Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from that is Smith is speaking of another Christ.Simular to the Jesus that RCC teachs-They made unto themselves a Christ that allows for Idol worship and sell him to people for attendance to their Church. - 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] For Dean
I concur that Judy has all the help she needs(ed) (gone but not forgotten. I was joking. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 06:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Dean cd: I don't think Judy needs help from anybody-as She has the Holy Spirit and some lionesses hunt alone.. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 9:10:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Dean Not hardly but I have to say he is an encouragement because healong with the other brothers you eschew are seeking the narrow path that leads to life On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:55:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interpretation of PS:Where is Kevin?? Help, Kevin! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 08:47 Subject: [TruthTalk] For Dean I'll pray for your localchurch home pilgrimage also .. thanks for sharing. judyt PS: Where is Kevin?? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:17:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath cd: Is John and the LDS in agreement now? You might actually try reading some of my posts rather than sitting there trying to come up with something cute to say. Refer to my 8 point post comparing Mormonism to Christianity and you will have your answer. cd: While it might not have been "cute"-it reminds me of a simular statement made by you to me last week-and I answered by sending the extra wives to the moon. But I would reath discuss the Bible than bite and scratch. By the way I read all you posts(usually).
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: Then you are looking as a blind man would -Judys love is in her desire to help you and others on better understanding God's word-as that strengthens you souls and it's relationship with the creator-This is why she fights put so much energy into her work-for you and the others. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:42:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I am sorry Judy. It pains me to say it, but I do not see any love in you. I see an intense desire to be right and I see at least a tendency to condemn those who do not see it as you do. I hope that love is there. I hope I am just blind to it and do not see it because of my inability. I thought you should know that if it is there, I cannot see it, because others may have the same problem.Thanks for clearing up your perceptions of the remaining law.TerryJudy Taylor wrote: I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for the Levitical priesthood which has passed away. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the 10 Commandments are basically the Golden Rule. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please? judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I tr y. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? 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] Saturday Sabbath
OrTerry has discerned and, expressed that which he discerned. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 06:58 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath cd: Then you are looking as a blind man would -Judys love is in her desire to help you and others on better understanding God's word-as that strengthens you souls and it's relationship with the creator-This is why she fights put so much energy into her work-for you and the others. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:42:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I am sorry Judy. It pains me to say it, but I do not see any love in you. I see an intense desire to be right and I see at least a tendency to condemn those who do not see it as you do. I hope that love is there. I hope I am just blind to it and do not see it because of my inability. I thought you should know that if it is there, I cannot see it, because others may have the same problem.Thanks for clearing up your perceptions of the remaining law.TerryJudy Taylor wrote: I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for the Levitical priesthood which has passed away. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the 10 Commandments are basically the Golden Rule. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please? judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I tr y. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
The Christ of the RCC is no different from the Christ I serve. That RCC theology is too full of tradition and works, we would probably agree. but if we roll all of RCC doctrine into the concept of "Christ," we comdemn ourselves by that action and for much of the same reasons. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 5:18:02 PM Subject: 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 cd: You and DaveH both mention Jesus Christ but it is not the Christ on the Bible-as was Smiths Christ not of God.If he was inspired then Smiths word would reflect Christ words they do not do so.Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from that is Smith is speaking of another Christ.Simular to the Jesus that RCC teachs-They made unto themselves a Christ that allows for Idol worship and sell him to people for attendance to their Church. - 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] Interpretation or interpolation
The failure of the "inspired" on this forum to answer or even try to answer questions concerning their doctrine of "spiritual discernment," its detachment from mental processes, and the infallible nature of its interpretive conclusions gives rise to the importance of a hermeneutical rule that would suggest that in addition to considerations of syntax, semantical concerns, contextual considerations including time, date and cultural histories --- a rule that adds to this mix the weight of the application or lack thereof of our theological conclusion. When we present and teach a conclusion that failsas anapplied value [ you all can't answer the questions !!], we expose those conclusions to be untrue or sorely in need of serious revisiting. A failure to do so is expressed in the difference between effective interpretation and a heady interpolation of Godly concerns Judy and David do not offer answers to questions posed because they cannot. jd.
Re: [TruthTalk] Interpretation or interpolation
AMEN!! They can however 'suggest' (view from a distance while not accusing) BLASPHEMY vis a vis those who do not concur with their position. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 08:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Interpretation or interpolation The failure of the "inspired" on this forum to answer or even try to answer questions concerning their doctrine of "spiritual discernment," its detachment from mental processes, and the infallible nature of its interpretive conclusions gives rise to the importance of a hermeneutical rule that would suggest that in addition to considerations of syntax, semantical concerns, contextual considerations including time, date and cultural histories --- a rule that adds to this mix the weight of the application or lack thereof of our theological conclusion. When we present and teach a conclusion that failsas anapplied value [ you all can't answer the questions !!], we expose those conclusions to be untrue or sorely in need of serious revisiting. A failure to do so is expressed in the difference between effective interpretation and a heady interpolation of Godly concerns Judy and David do not offer answers to questions posed because they cannot. jd.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance
Would you care to expand on that statement? Lance Muir wrote: There is NO MILLENIUM! We are where HEAVENwill be.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Martin's Thesis
MessageThanks for sharing this thesis, Lance. I enjoyed reading a historical and theological treatment of the home church movement's eschatological views from an old world English perspective. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
You could be right, Dean. Dean Moore wrote: cd: Then you are looking as a blind man would -Judys love is in her desire to help you and others on better understanding God's word-as that strengthens you souls and it's relationship with the creator-This is why she fights put so much energy into her work-for you and the others. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:42:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I am sorry Judy. It pains me to say it, but I do not see any love in you. I see an intense desire to be right and I see at least a tendency to condemn those who do not see it as you do. I hope that love is there. I hope I am just blind to it and do not see it because of my inability. I thought you should know that if it is there, I cannot see it, because others may have the same problem. Thanks for clearing up your perceptions of the remaining law. Terry Judy Taylor wrote: I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for the Levitical priesthood which has passed away. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the 10 Commandments are basically the Golden Rule. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please? judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I tr y. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either. Terry ShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? 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] Do believers really disagree on anything?
JD wrote: My question is this -- when we do disagree on a passage of scripture -- who is right? You with your doctrine of divine illumination?And when you and Judy, believing the very same thing about spiritual discernment disagree -- who is right in that case? Obviously it depends upon the specific situation, but if I have received a divine illumination concerning a topic or passage of Scripture, I should not relinquish that understanding simply because someone else has a different perspective. The work is to see how it fits in with the illlumintion received by others. So the answer to your last question usually is yes, I am the one who is right, but not to the exclusion of that truthful aspect shared by another. Sometimes separating truth from fiction is like whittling on a piece of wood. Please keep in mind also that Revelation / Illumination and Biblical Interpretation are not mutually exclusive. Some people engage in both while others only engage in the latter. There are some, few, who engage only in the former. JD wrote: If you cannot answer these question, the only conclusion one can draw for the time being is that the teaching on spiritual discerment versus intellectual interpretation is a false teaching. I have answered your question, and am able to answer with many more words, but when you do not hear and understand the basics and choose to mock what few words I have shared already, the rest of the answer cannot be shared. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance
Only slightly, Terry. The former is, IMO obviously, a biblical/theological construction which was a mistake to begin with. It has since taken on a life of it's own. The latter simply means that in the 'end' the kingdom will be on earth. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 08:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance Would you care to expand on that statement?Lance Muir wrote: There is NO MILLENIUM! We are where HEAVENwill be.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
Terry wrote to Judy: I would suggest first, that you need not respond to every post. Let some of them go by without a comment. Second, you might ask why a person came to his or her conclusion rather than just telling them flat out that they do not know what they are talking about. I have a very easy time seeing Judy as a very loving person. Others have expressed much grief over her posts, and much of the time I am somewhat surprised by such responses. Nevertheless, your advice here I think is very helpful if Judy will hear it. While I see a lot of love in Judy and her posts, she does have a tendency not to be able to hear the other side. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Many times in attempting to hear the other side, we ourselves lose a piece of truth that we should not. Many times Judy's posts have helped me from ignoring certain basic principles and truths in my effort to hear the other side. Therefore, what some might see as a defect or weakness, I see an aspect of strength in it. Perhaps love is not the right word choice in your comments to Judy concerning what she is lacking. Empathy is what you are really talking about. Love is concern and care for others. I think Judy has that. Empathy is the ability to understand and identify with another person's feelings or difficulties. There is perhaps some room for improvement in regards to this concerning theologians like Barth, Calvin, etc., or certain list members like John, Lance, Gary, Bill, etc. The question really is, should Judy be more empathic toward individuals such as these? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
I ask you, David. Should Judy be more 'empathetic' toward these? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 09:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry Terry wrote to Judy: I would suggest first, that you need not respond to every post. Let some of them go by without a comment. Second, you might ask why a person came to his or her conclusion rather than just telling them flat out that they do not know what they are talking about. I have a very easy time seeing Judy as a very loving person. Others have expressed much grief over her posts, and much of the time I am somewhat surprised by such responses. Nevertheless, your advice here I think is very helpful if Judy will hear it. While I see a lot of love in Judy and her posts, she does have a tendency not to be able to hear the other side. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Many times in attempting to hear the other side, we ourselves lose a piece of truth that we should not. Many times Judy's posts have helped me from ignoring certain basic principles and truths in my effort to hear the other side. Therefore, what some might see as a defect or weakness, I see an aspect of strength in it. Perhaps love is not the right word choice in your comments to Judy concerning what she is lacking. Empathy is what you are really talking about. Love is concern and care for others. I think Judy has that. Empathy is the ability to understand and identify with another person's feelings or difficulties. There is perhaps some room for improvement in regards to this concerning theologians like Barth, Calvin, etc., or certain list members like John, Lance, Gary, Bill, etc. The question really is, should Judy be more empathic toward individuals such as these? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
Judy wrote: I'm really sorry that what the Lord has done in me so far is not up to standard. All I really have to give is my time and love for God's Word. I think what the Lord has done in you thus far is way above standard and needed by all of us. Please don't let criticisms, especially those offered with love, cause you to feel rejected or unloved. The wise man loves correction. You know this. I have often pondered how every President in this country, whether Republican or Democrat or whatever, never garners much more than 50% of the vote, and often much less. This conveys a message to me that in this country, any leader who is worthy will be rejected and wrongly criticized by at least about 50% of the people. The only people who are seemingly accepted by everyone are those who do nothing and say nothing. Clearly, the Lord does not want us to be in that category. Therefore, take the fact that someone has criticized something about you as evidence that you are on the right track in doing something. People only criticize those who are doing something. Be open for correction, hearing what is helpful in what is being said, and rejecting that which is not helpful. This is all we can do and it is all that God expects of us. On judgment day, we all come before the Lord to give account for ourselves. On that day, he will know how much you have worked on hearing and receiving the correction being given to you. He will not be calling for others to hear from them about you on that day. It will be only you and Him. He knows better than anyone, having lived in this flesh, that you must reject a lot of bad correction and receive only that which is good. The right response is to make that judgment of what is good and what is bad, and then move on. The wrong response is to retreat in order to avoid the tribulation that must necessarily come from doing what God would have you do. Wishing you the best in Christ, Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance
JD wrote: These words I didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. This is your example of arrogance? You are only projecting your own arrogance upon Judy. You think you write so perfectly that nobody in the world could fail to understand you! JD wrote: I do not believe for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote !! She pretends to not be at war with me - yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it does get tiring. That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no sincerity in her post. Sorry. I fully believe that Judy did not understand what you wrote. I often cannot understand your writings. Your assumptions are very different from most people I know. As for Judy's concept that she is not at war with you, well, the reason she thinks that way is because in her heart she has nothing personally against you. Opposing some of your posts is an act of love on her part, hoping that you will see that your viewpoint is not the shining tower of truth that you seem to think it is. It is no different than a parent correcting one's child. Some might think that parental correction and discpline is contrary to love, but those of us mature in the Lord know that such is love of the highest degree. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud
John quoted Barth as saying: More than anything else placed in the church, the biblical record is the successor to the apostles. Fair points about Barth's respect for the Bible, but he did miss it a little with this statement, in my opinion. The apostles were and are the successors to the Biblical record, not the other way around. Matthew 11:12-13 (12) And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (13) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
Lance wrote: I ask you, David. Should Judy be more 'empathetic' toward these? That is a difficult question for me because I think I err on the other side of being too empathetic at times. Judy helps balance me, and if she were as empathetic as me, we would lose something important. Personally, I think she could perhaps be a little more empathetic, but I fear to press that issue because I don't want to lose what Judy brings to the table. In many ways, I think I need to be more like her in this regard. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud
His reference is to the 12 and with that in mind, would you not agree? jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John quoted Barth as saying: More than anything else placed in the church, the biblical record is the successor to the apostles. Fair points about Barth's respect for the Bible, but he did miss it a little with this statement, in my opinion. The apostles were and are the successors to the Biblical record, not the other way around. Matthew 11:12-13 (12) And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (13) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Interpretation or interpolation
John wrote: The failure of the inspired on this forum to answer or even try to answer questions concerning their doctrine of spiritual discernment, its detachment from mental processes, and the infallible nature of its interpretive conclusions gives rise to the importance of a hermeneutical rule that would suggest that in addition to considerations of syntax, semantical concerns, contextual considerations including time, date and cultural histories --- a rule that adds to this mix the weight of the application or lack thereof of our theological conclusion. When we present and teach a conclusion that fails as an applied value [ you all can't answer the questions !!], we expose those conclusions to be untrue or sorely in need of serious revisiting. A failure to do so is expressed in the difference between effective interpretation and a heady interpolation of Godly concerns What you do not seem to realize is that you argue from the presumption that your way of interpretation is not only best, but it is the only available option. You ignore important passages such as: 1 Corinthians 2:9-15 (9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Your system of learning is not the only one, but you plow forward like a bull in the proverbial china shop thinking that you have it all figured out. When someone does not conform to your own system of learning and teaching, you arrogantly assume that they are in error simply because they do not play by your rules of learning and teaching. Even if no answers were given to you, that would not support the rejection of another system of learning. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (6) Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: (7) But we speak the wisdom of God IN A MYSTERY, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (8) Which none of the princes of this world knew ... 1 Corinthians 2:13 (13) Which things also we speak, NOT IN THE WORDS WHICH MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. John wrote: Judy and David do not offer answers to questions posed because they cannot. Wrong, John. I have answered and could answer a lot more, but my answers are not understood by you any better than my 10 year old child understanding the answer to a calculus problem. Another problem is that you are trying to force the answers into your hermeneutical box and system of learning. Set your box aside and try being like a child all over again and hear what is being said. That would be a good step toward understanding spiritual revelation. Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues helps too. :-) 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 (14) For if I pray in an unknown tongue, MY SPIRIT PRAYETH, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS UNFRUITFUL. (15) What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud
John wrote: His reference is to the 12 and with that in mind, would you not agree? No, I still think it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Apostles are basically doers of the Bible. The twelve would never had been if the Biblical record had not come first. We have added some of their writings to the rest of Scripture, but this only bolsters the point that the apostles are our examples concerning how we should likewise succeed the Biblical record. Very little of the Biblical record has to do with the twelve. Only 3 of the 12 apostles have given us any Scripture at all. The tendency to elevate the Scriptures above the living examples of the apostles is a mistake IMO. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Original message -- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] John quoted Barth as saying: More than anything else placed in the church, the biblical record is the successor to the apostles. Fair points about Barth's respect for the Bible, but he did miss it a little with this statement, in my opinion. The apostles were and are the successors to the Biblical record, not the other way around. Matthew 11:12-13 (12) And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (13) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
I also do not wish to lose what Judy brings to the 'mix'. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 10:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry Lance wrote: I ask you, David. Should Judy be more 'empathetic' toward these? That is a difficult question for me because I think I err on the other side of being too empathetic at times. Judy helps balance me, and if she were as empathetic as me, we would lose something important. Personally, I think she could perhaps be a little more empathetic, but I fear to press that issue because I don't want to lose what Judy brings to the table. In many ways, I think I need to be more like her in this regard. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
Well said, pastor. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 10:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry Judy wrote: I'm really sorry that what the Lord has done in me so far is not up to standard. All I really have to give is my time and love for God's Word. I think what the Lord has done in you thus far is way above standard and needed by all of us. Please don't let criticisms, especially those offered with love, cause you to feel rejected or unloved. The wise man loves correction. You know this. I have often pondered how every President in this country, whether Republican or Democrat or whatever, never garners much more than 50% of the vote, and often much less. This conveys a message to me that in this country, any leader who is worthy will be rejected and wrongly criticized by at least about 50% of the people. The only people who are seemingly accepted by everyone are those who do nothing and say nothing. Clearly, the Lord does not want us to be in that category. Therefore, take the fact that someone has criticized something about you as evidence that you are on the right track in doing something. People only criticize those who are doing something. Be open for correction, hearing what is helpful in what is being said, and rejecting that which is not helpful. This is all we can do and it is all that God expects of us. On judgment day, we all come before the Lord to give account for ourselves. On that day, he will know how much you have worked on hearing and receiving the correction being given to you. He will not be calling for others to hear from them about you on that day. It will be only you and Him. He knows better than anyone, having lived in this flesh, that you must reject a lot of bad correction and receive only that which is good. The right response is to make that judgment of what is good and what is bad, and then move on. The wrong response is to retreat in order to avoid the tribulation that must necessarily come from doing what God would have you do. Wishing you the best in Christ, Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
What the Lord has done for Judy is not in question by anyone on this list. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: I'm really sorry that what the Lord has done in me so far is not up to standard. All I really have to give is my time and love for God's Word. I think what the Lord has done in you thus far is way above standard and needed by all of us. Please don't let criticisms, especially those offered with love, cause you to feel rejected or unloved. The wise man loves correction. You know this. I have often pondered how every President in this country, whether Republican or Democrat or whatever, never garners much more than 50% of the vote, and often much less. This conveys a message to me that in this country, any leader who is worthy will be rejected and wrongly criticized by at l east about 50% of the people. The only people who are seemingly accepted by everyone are those who do nothing and say nothing. Clearly, the Lord does not want us to be in that category. Therefore, take the fact that someone has criticized something about you as evidence that you are on the right track in doing something. People only criticize those who are doing something. Be open for correction, hearing what is helpful in what is being said, and rejecting that which is not helpful. This is all we can do and it is all that God expects of us. On judgment day, we all come before the Lord to give account for ourselves. On that day, he will know how much you have worked on hearing and receiving the correction being given to you. He will not be calling for others to hear from them about you on that day. It will be only you and Him. He knows better than anyone, having lived in this flesh, that you must reject a lot of bad correctio n and receive only that which is good. The right response is to make that judgment of what is good and what is bad, and then move on. The wrong response is to retreat in order to avoid the tribulation that must necessarily come from doing what God would have you do. Wishing you the best in Christ, Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
! -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: I ask you, David. Should Judy be more 'empathetic' toward these? That is a difficult question for me because I think I err on the other side of being too empathetic at times. Judy helps balance me, and if she were as empathetic as me, we would lose something important. Personally, I think she could perhaps be a little more empathetic, but I fear to press that issue because I don't want to lose what Judy brings to the table. In many ways, I think I need to be more like her in this regard. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http ://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Lance
I explained why I used the word "arrogance." You will excuse me for speaking from my perspective which is the proverbial dirty end of the stick -- Judy being on the sanitized end. I am not in need of a mother, David. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: These words I didn't understand it JD, It was incomprehensible to me struck me as casting my writing in the same light as DM often does. I regard such as blatant arrognace. This is your example of arrogance? You are only projecting your own arrogance upon Judy. You think you write so perfectly that nobody in the world could fail to understand you! JD wrote: I do not believe for a second that Judy could not understand what I wrote !! She pretends to not be at war with me - yet she opposes my words with every post. She has called me the Accuser, knowing full well the biblcal usage of that word. I consider the source, but it does get tiring. That she is not at war with me is simply not believable. I see no sincerity in her post. Sorry. I fully believe that Judy did not understand what you wrote. I often cannot understand your writings. Your assumptions are very different from most people I know. As for Judy's concept that she is not at war with you, well, the reason she thinks that way is because in her heart she has nothing personally against you. Opposing some of your posts is an act of love on her part, hoping that you will see that your viewpoint is not the shining tower of truth that you seem to think it is. It is no different than a parent correcting one's child. Some might think that parental correction and discpline is contrary to love, but those of us mature in the Lord know that such is love of the highest degree. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- t; "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] Question for Lance
I agree that there will be a new Heaven and a new earth. How they will be connected or seperated is beyond me. I would think that I would quickly tire of walking streets of gold but at the same time, I want to be where Jesus is. When you speak of no millenium, do you mean no thousand year reign? Lance Muir wrote: Only slightly, Terry. The former is, IMO obviously, a biblical/theological construction which was a mistake to begin with. It has since taken on a life of it's own. The latter simply means that in the 'end' the kingdom will be on earth. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 08:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance Would you care to expand on that statement? Lance Muir wrote: There is NO MILLENIUM! We are where HEAVENwill be.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
You are probably on to something here, David. I cannot say for sure. Anyone who loves the Lord will, if for no other reason than to be obedient, love the Lord's people. I am saying that I could not see it in the way she responded to people. Judy is not the only one on here to affect me that way. I see the same thing in myself and others at times. David Miller wrote: I have a very easy time seeing Judy as a very loving person. Others have expressed much grief over her posts, and much of the time I am somewhat surprised by such responses. Nevertheless, your advice here I think is very helpful if Judy will hear it. While I see a lot of love in Judy and her posts, she does have a tendency not to be able to hear the other side. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Many times in attempting to hear the other side, we ourselves lose a piece of truth that we should not. Many times Judy's posts have helped me from ignoring certain basic principles and truths in my effort to hear the other side. Therefore, what some might see as a defect or weakness, I see an aspect of strength in it. Perhaps love is not the right word choice in your comments to Judy concerning what she is lacking. Empathy is what you are really talking about. Love is concern and care for others. I think Judy has that. Empathy is the ability to understand and identify with another person's feelings or difficulties. There is perhaps some room for improvement in regards to this concerning theologians like Barth, Calvin, etc., or certain list members like John, Lance, Gary, Bill, etc. The question really is, should Judy be more empathic toward individuals such as these? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance
Yes, that is what I mean, Terry. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 13:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance I agree that there will be a new Heaven and a new earth. How they will be connected or seperated is beyond me. I would think that I would quickly tire of walking streets of gold but at the same time, I want to be where Jesus is. When you speak of no millenium, do you mean no thousand year reign?Lance Muir wrote: Only slightly, Terry. The former is, IMO obviously, a biblical/theological construction which was a mistake to begin with. It has since taken on a life of it's own. The latter simply means that in the 'end' the kingdom will be on earth. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 08:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Lance Would you care to expand on that statement?Lance Muir wrote: There is NO MILLENIUM! We are where HEAVENwill be.
Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry
Ya know, I kinda had the same reaction but, thought I ought not say so. Now that you have expressed what I thought (!), I'll just say AMEN - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 11:56 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry ! -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: I ask you, David. Should Judy be more 'empathetic' toward these? That is a difficult question for me because I think I err on the other side of being too empathetic at times. Judy helps balance me, and if she were as empathetic as me, we would lose something important. Personally, I think she could perhaps be a little more empathetic, but I fear to press that issue because I don't want to lose what Judy brings to the table. In many ways, I think I need to be more like her in this regard. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http ://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Who believes in God?
An interesting article forwarded to me by a friend: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/notbelieveingod/notbelieveingodfloc=wn-nt -- 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] Who decides
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: My question is this -- when we do disagree on a passage of scripture -- who is right? You with your doctrine of divine illumination? And when you and Judy, believing the very same thing about "spiritual discernment" disagree -- who is right in that case? Obviously it depends upon the specific situation, but if I have received a divine illumination concerning a topic or passage of Scripture, I should not relinquish that understanding simply because someone else has a different perspective. You mean when someone else has a different illumination. The work is to see how it fits in with the illlumintion received by others. So the "perspectives" recieved from illumination can be different from one person to the other , perhaps depending on that persons needs and where she is in terms of maturity (?) So the answer to your last question usually is yes, I am the one who is right, but not to the exclusion of that truthful aspect shared by another. but apparently you do exclude the opinions or beliefs of others based upon what you consider to be "revealed (to you) truth." You believe that we are still under law and I do not. I consider my point to be from God as surely as you do your opinion. I see a dfference between prophetical revelation and providential revelation. And in thatcontext, especiallyprovidential illumination, you and I can have two very different view points that Godcan use to bring both of us into the ssame relationship with Him. Sometimes separating truth from fiction is like whittling on a piece of wood. Please keep in mind also that Revelation / Illumination and Biblical Interpretation are not mutually exclusive. I have never thought otherwise -- in fact, I think they are the same thing. Some people engage in both while others only engage in the latter. There are some, few, who engage only in the former. JD wrote: If you cannot answer these question, the only conclusion one can draw for the time being is that the teaching on "spiritual discerment" versus intellectual interpretation is a false teaching. I have answered your question, and am able to answer with many more words, You JUST NOW answered my question. And I not quite convinced it is an answer. Time will tell. but when you do not hear and understand the basics and choose to mock what few words I have shared already, the rest of the answer cannot be shared. There was nothing to mock until now, in this post, King David. It was a good post up to this point. Peace be with you. D avid Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The failure of the "inspired" on this forum to answer or even try to answer questions concerning their doctrine of "spiritual discernment," its detachment from mental processes, and the infallible nature of its interpretive conclusions gives rise to the importance of a hermeneutical rule that would suggest that in addition to considerations of syntax, semantical concerns, contextual considerations including time, date and cultural histories --- a rule that adds to this mix the weight of the application or lack thereof of our theological conclusion. When we present and teach a conclusion that fails as an applied value [ you all can't answer the questions !!], we expose those conclusions to be untrue or sorely in nee d of serious revisiting. A failure to do so is expressed in the difference between effective interpretation and a heady interpolation of Godly concerns What you do not seem to realize is that you argue from the presumption that your way of interpretation is not only best, but it is the only available option. Yes I do. You ignore important passages such as: 1 Corinthians 2:9-15 (9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishn ess unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Why would you think I ignore this passage. It happens to be one of my fabs. It is the very reason I study, read form the counsel of others, share on this forum , listen , pray and recommit myself to this same process. Our difference has to do with how this all plays out in the lives of those with the Spirit. At no time do I beleive that you or anyone else possesses truth that cannot be wrong. Your system of learning is not the only one, but you plow forward like a bull in the proverbial china shop thinking that you have it all figured out. Ad hom be damned. Stay on point, please. When someone does not conform to your own system of learning and teaching, you arrogantly assume that they are in error simply because they do not play by your rules of learning and teaching. Even if no answers were given to you, that would not support the rejection of another system of learning. What do you think is my thinking when it comes to illumination and the truth and the beliefs of others who are disciples of Christ? You seem to be saying that I have I Corinthians 2:6-8Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: (7) But we speak the wisdom of God IN A MYSTERY, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (8) Which none of the princes of this world knew ... 1 Corinthians 2:13 (13) Which things also we speak, NOT IN THE WORDS WHICH MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Wow, I ignore "important passages such as .." could have been more precisely written as " you ignore I Co chapter 2:6-15. John wrote: Judy and David do not offer answers to questions posed because they cannot. Wrong, John. I have answered and could answer a lot more,You had not answered at the time I wrote that post. but my answers are not understood by you any better than my 10 year old child understanding the answer to a calculus problem. Ah, I can figure out Bill Taylor, Barth, Torrance, Lance, Terry Clifton, Kevin Deegan - but not you because youranswers areto complicatedfor me (?) Another problem is that you are trying to force the answers into your hermeneutical box and system of learning. Set your box aside and try being like a child all over again and hear what is being said. bleed my brain dry of any competing influences and soak in what you have to say? does that catch your meaning? If not, splain, please. That would be a good step toward understanding spiritual revelation. Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in
Re: [TruthTalk] barth, the apostles and biblical succession
To succeed someone is not to place one above the other. but, perhaps you shouldreadthe referenced passage for yourself. You may change your mind. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: His reference is to the 12 and with that in mind, would you not agree? No, I still think it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Apostles are basically doers of the Bible. The twelve would never had been if the Biblical record had not come first. We have added some of their writings to the rest of Scripture, but this only bolsters the point that the apostles are our examples concerning how we should likewise succeed the Biblical record. Very little of the Biblical record has to do with the twelve. Only 3 of the 12 apostles have given us any Scripture at all. The tendency to elevate the Scriptures above the living examples of the apostles is a mistake IMO. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Original message -- F rom: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John quoted Barth as saying:More than anything else placed in the church,the biblical record is the successor to the apostles. Fair points about Barth's respect for the Bible, but he did miss it a little with this statement, in my opinion. The apostles were and are the successors to the Biblical record, not the other way around. Matthew 11:12-13 (12) And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (13) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man ." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: Thank you botherMarlin for this site-good stuff-I have saved it to my computer:-) - Original Message - From: Marlin halverson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 12:38:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:08:24 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I love the Bible! In church, we are currently studying the DC, but will begin the Old Testament in January, for a year. Last year we studied the BoM, the year before, the New Testament. It is all scripture to us. We do not see the problems you see with the BoM. It is 100% compatible with the Bible--you just have to have the perspective we have. You have to first believe, even if just a little bit, and faith will grow within you, to take over you whole soul, Dean. cd: The Lord rebuke you Blain for such a evil suggestion. May God kill me before something that dark takes over my soul. In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:40:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 11:05:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Just another little disagreement as to what conclusions can be reached in reading a particular passage in the Bible. Blainerb cd: The bible say to study to show thyself approved. Some passages must be studied-I see no problem here-you bias against the Bible is showing Blain-better cover it.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: John Rom.14 again is speaking of eating certain food on feast days called Holy Days and to not judge you brother for eating certain foods -read the entire verse and tell me how many times food, or eating,or drinking is mention in that chapter? It is mentioned 19 times John-now tell me what does the Sabbath (sat) have to do with eating?Yet eating has a important role in the Feasts of Isreal.Use logic and the answer will come. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:06:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14 puts to an end this argument. -- Original message -- From: "Marlin halverson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:13:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep JD was just stating a biblical truth, Dean. Jesus said several times he was sent to the house of Israel ONLY!!! He never went to the Gentiles. His apostles did that. But he did visit the Israelite branches in the Americas and the isles of the sea--these werehis "other sheep." And because the visit was in person, they heard his voice. Blainerb cd: Jesus didn't stay he wasn't here for the Gentiles-He said that he was here first for the Jews-and later the gentiles upon the Jews rejection. Jew spoke to and healed many gentiles. The Samaritan woman at the well was one of those he preached to-there were many others.The other sheep mentioned were gentiles-there were no Jews in early Americas only Indians which migrated from the south eastern part of Asia-DNA has proved this to be true. Also the lack of artifacts and language singularizes proves this did not happen. You have be deceived Blaine. In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:42:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blainerb: VERY GOOD, jd!! Jesus said several times he was sentonly to the House of Israel, which is why he even went to the Samaritans, many of whom had Jewish bloodlines. That being concluded, what do you think when he said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too I must visit, and they too must Hear My Voice!" cd: Is John and the LDS in agreement now? In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/20/2005 6:48:08 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Amen Dean! UNTIL YOUR RCC COMMENTS! IMO you should stay with what y'all understand. Further, IMO, y'all should press the MC on the very central considerations raised AND camp there 'til they know what evangelical 'discernment' is on such. cd: Because you disagree doesn't mean I have a failure in understanding Lance. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 5:18:02 PM Subject: 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 cd: You and DaveH both mention Jesus Christ but it is not the Christ on the Bible-as was Smiths Christ not of God.If he was inspired then Smiths word would reflect Christ words they do not do so.Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from that is Smith is speaking of another Christ.Simular to the Jesus that RCC teachs-They made unto themselves a Christ that allows for Idol worship and sell him to people for attendance to their Church. - 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] Cross
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/20/2005 7:49:31 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross The Christ of the RCC is no different from the Christ I serve. That RCC theology is too full of tradition and works, we would probably agree. but if we roll all of RCC doctrine into the concept of "Christ," we comdemn ourselves by that action and for much of the same reasons. jd cd: Really John? So you Jesus allows you to pray to Idols (ie Mary and many Saints). Does you Jesus say the Pope is infallible? Does you Jesus allow you to remove one of his commandments (ie. the second commandment of no Idol worship)and divide the tenth in two commandmentsto hid their actions? Does you Jesus allow you to beat your self for a lesser hell-by punishing yourself or does he say repent? Does you Jesus teach of purgatory?...etc? My Jesus doesn't allow such things. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 5:18:02 PM Subject: 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 cd: You and DaveH both mention Jesus Christ but it is not the Christ on the Bible-as was Smiths Christ not of God.If he was inspired then Smiths word would reflect Christ words they do not do so.Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from that is Smith is speaking of another Christ.Simular to the Jesus that RCC teachs-They made unto themselves a Christ that allows for Idol worship and sell him to people for attendance to their Church. - 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] For Terry
cd: Judy I will miss you-know that we need you-that is why I came back-I hope you do the same-Terry is not who he seems don't let him hurt you -fight the good fight. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 9:06:12 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] For Terry Terry, Thank you for your detailed response ... I would like to have an image that is pleasing to everyone and am truly sorry that I have missed the mark with this. I don't havemoney to show ppl love; and what I do have is constantly mocked and maligned. I never wanted to get into this back and forth volley of strife but I guess when we lay with the dogs we get up with fleas. I'm really sorry that what the Lord has done in me so far is not up to standard. All I really have to give ismy time and love for God's Word. Actually I should - like Christine - be spending my time more wisely, especially at this time of year so I will follow her example and sign off for now. . Wishing everyone a joyous holiday season, judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:56:34 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy Taylor wrote: Terry, You wrote a very explicit comment about me personally earlier today which caused me to respond with the following question. If you are walking in the kind of love you accuse me of being void of ... Then couldyou please answer the following for me. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love you say you don't see in me - What would it look like? Can you describe it please? Does any person demonstrate it on TT? judytIf I could see it I could possibly describe it Judy, but I cannot see it. This concerns you so you obviously want to show people you love or care about them. The thing is, it just doesn't come through. I can see that you know your Bible. I can agree with much of what you post. I can see that you try to live a life pleasing to the Lord. The only thing missing is the love for others. Let me throw out a couple of possibilities for you to consider that might help. I am not suggesting that you stop being you. I am suggesting that you change your pattern a little to let others see the care you have in your heart. I would suggest first, that you need not respond to every post. Let some of them go by without a comment. Second, you might ask why a person came to his or her conclusion rather than just telling them flat out that they do not know what they are talking about. (I seldom know what G or Bill i s talking about, but I seldom comment on anything they say) Surprisingly, I think Bill cares about the people here, maybe as much as Dean does. I see John and Izzy at their best and at their worst. Both of them , I believe, make a decision to be kinder and more loving, but their button eventually gets pushed and they start replying as you do.I know personally of David Millers love. He offered me financial help that ,thank the Lord, I did not need at the time, but the offer was sincere. He wanted to help me. That makes it easy to love him, cause like Christ, he loved me first. Marlin wanted to help his neighbor a while back, so no need to question the love in his heart. The others on the list have probably not impressed me one way or the other. I choose to think the best of them.We all have a long way to go in this area, Judy. You are not in this boat by yourself. None of us has reached the other shore. I had to peek around my beam to write what I did. Please think about what I've said. I meant to help, even if the short term result is hurtful. I will be praying for you.Terry judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
David Miller wrote: Obviously it depends upon the specific situation, but if I have received a divine illumination concerning a topic or passage of Scripture, I should not relinquish that understanding simply because someone else has a different perspective. John wrote: You mean when someone else has a different illumination. No, revelation does not work exclusive of interpretation. It is very common for people to add their own interpretation to a revelation. This is what causes a lot of the problems. People have to separate the word they receive from the Lord and the interpretations and ponderings that they add to it from their own mind. David Miller wrote: The work is to see how it fits in with the illlumintion received by others. John wrote: So the perspectives recieved from illumination can be different from one person to the other , perhaps depending on that persons needs and where she is in terms of maturity (?) Yes, people receive different aspects and perspectives and through loving one another we can obtain the bigger picture as we put our pieces together. John wrote: but apparently you do exclude the opinions or beliefs of others based upon what you consider to be revealed (to you) truth. Yes, sometimes the opinions and beliefs of others are wrong and must be rejected. We should always receive the opinion of God over the opinion of men. John wrote: You believe that we are still under law and I do not. I do NOT believe that WE are still under law. I certainly am not under law, but I cannot speak for everyone else. John wrote: I consider my point to be from God as surely as you do your opinion. I have no problem with your point that we are not still under law. What I have tried to do in the past is add to what you already know about this. The fact that I am not under the law does not mean that the law has been destroyed or done away with. David Miller wrote: Please keep in mind also that Revelation / Illumination and Biblical Interpretation are not mutually exclusive. John wrote: I have never thought otherwise -- in fact, I think they are the same thing. There is a distinction between revelation and Biblical interpretation. This is the source of your disagreement with Judy, not believing that God reveals to her knowledge through the Spirit. You even delineate different types of revelation, so how can you say that Biblical interpretation and revelation are the same thing? How can you consider yourself a Pentecostal, but you don't distinguish between revelation and Biblical interpretation? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
John wrote: At no time do I beleive that you or anyone else possesses truth that cannot be wrong. By definition, truth cannot be wrong. Therefore, the truth I possess cannot be wrong, neither can the truth that you possess be wrong. If something you hold to is found to be wrong, you can be sure that whatever it was, it was not truth. David Miller wrote: Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues helps too. John wrote: I have had that experience and spiritual tongue is ENGLISH !!! If you have not spoken in a language that you did not learn and did not understand, then you have not had that experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. I've already shared with you the Scriptures, that when one prays in the spirit, his mind is unfruitful. When you pray in a language you understand, you necessarily involve your mind, so that is not speaking in tongues. Furthermore, you cannot pray for the interpretation of what you have spoken if your mind already understands what you have said. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] sweat
Blainerb: Apparently I am not the first to wonder if the loss of blood at Gethsemane was considerable. See below: In a message dated 12/19/2005 8:53:15 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Although some authors have suggested that hematidrosis produced hypovolemia, we agree with Bucklin5 that Jesus actual blood loss probably was minimal. search help Printer-Friendly Format | Email to a Friend Definition of Hypovolemia Hypovolemia: An abnormal decrease in blood volume or, strictly speaking, an abnormal decrease in the volume of blood plasma. From hypo- + volume + emia (blood).
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Weren't we talking about holy day obsevances? You have added a traditional point of view to the text, which is fine, but it is a tradition I do not accept. Paul is dealing with Jewish issues in Romans 14, which would include the Sabbath. That opinion is a tradition as well.But I believe the context supports the point since the Jews are clearly a major consideration of Paul. Butthanks for you comments. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: John Rom.14 again is speaking of eating certain food on feast days called Holy Days and to not judge you brother for eating certain foods -read the entire verse and tell me how many times food, or eating,or drinking is mention in that chapter? It is mentioned 19 times John-now tell me what does the Sabbath (sat) have to do with eating?Yet eating has a important role in the Feasts of Isreal.Use logic and the answer will come. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:06:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14 puts to an end this argument. -- Original message -- From: "Marlin halverson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
My Jesus, Dean, IS NOT DEFINED by the traditons of men. Was Jesus born of a virgin. Was He , at the same time, the Son of God? Is He the Creator of the worlds. Was he reased from the dead ? Is it His sacrifice that presents us with the forgiveness of sins? Yes to all this -- and the RCC is fully agreed on these ppoints. The RCC differs from my theology on two general levels - the importances of works and the place in worship for the traditions of the Church. A third consideration is the role of the Church as the revelator of God in Christ. But our God is the same. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/20/2005 7:49:31 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross The Christ of the RCC is no different from the Christ I serve. That RCC theology is too full of tradition and works, we would probably agree. but if we roll all of RCC doctrine into the concept of "Christ," we comdemn ourselves by that action and for much of the same reasons. jd cd: Really John? So you Jesus allows you to pray to Idols (ie Mary and many Saints). Does you Jesus say the Pope is infallible? Does you Jesus allow you to remove one of his commandments (ie. the second commandment of no Idol worship)and divide the tenth in two commandmentsto hid their actions? Does you Jesus allow you to beat your self for a lesser hell-by punishing yourself or does he say repent? Does you Jesus teach of purgatory?...etc? My Jesus doesn't allow such things. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 5:18:02 PM Subject: 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 cd: You and DaveH both mention Jesus Christ but it is not the Christ on the Bible-as was Smiths Christ not of God.If he was inspired then Smiths word would reflect Christ words they do not do so.Therefore the only conclusion I can draw from that is Smith is speaking of another Christ.Simular to the Jesus that RCC teachs-They made unto themselves a Christ that allows for Idol worship and sell him to people for attendance to their Church. - 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] Who decides
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: At no time do I beleive that you or anyone else possesses truth that cannot be wrong. By definition, truth cannot be wrong. Therefore, the truth I possess cannot be wrong, neither can the truth that you possess be wrong. If something you hold to is found to be wrong, you can be sure that whatever it was, it was not truth. My error , here, is that I did not write "truth" as I intended it to be understood. Let me put it to you another way, David there is nothing that you believe as a mater of faith that cannot be wrong. David Miller wrote: Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues helps too. John wrote: I have had that experience and spiritual tongue is ENGLISH !!! If you have not spoken in a language that you did not learn and did not understand, then you have not had that experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is not a thought that is in line with biblical teaching, my friend. Baptism of the Spirit occurs for me on every occasion, and I mean every occasion that I share songs and hymns in a corporate setting. Eph 5:18-19 is a reference you might consider. My testimony pictures the reality. As far as speaking in "tongues." According to you, my understanding and use of the English language is infintile at best. From your perspective and past insults, English is an unknown tongue for poor old John Smithson. At any rate, the "baptism of the Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues" has such poor theological foundation that it, as a doctrine, is quickly vanishing from the scene of the Pentecostal community. I've already shared with you the Scriptures, that when one prays in the spirit, his mind is unfruitful. When you pray in a language you understand, you necessarily involve your mind, so that is not speaking in tongues. Furthermore, you cannot pray for the interpretation of what you have spoken if your mind already understands what you have said. Huh? I can't pray for what I don't understand because my prayer tongue is English?? !! My wife prays in tongues. I have been around the experience for years and years, David.I am just as much in the spirit as my wife during worship times. Time after time I have simply knelt during worship or stood with raised hands and just let it all soak in . At those times, I am fully aware of the promised intervention of the Spirit on my behalf. God speakstto me, David, just as certainly as He does to you and, who knows, maybe more often. But the experience of Spirit filling (read: spirit baptism) is not the center of my "new nature." The Lordship of Christ is. The Lord has revealed to me the vanity of placing too much stock in "spiritual knowledge." Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
