Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Dave, sounds like you'er still a little sore for getting booted off of TT for continuing a banned topic. Old news...move on. I also think your concept of free speech is a little twisted. Free speech laws apply in a public forum, but TT is not a public forum. It is a private discussion group. The owner of the group has the right to request common decency, and ban those who use profanity if he wishes. Just like in your home, if says something that offends you, you can kick them out. However, if you meet them on the public sidewalkthey can saywhatever they want andyou cannot do a thing (legally) to prevent it (unless, of course, slander is committed, then you have legal recourse). Why do you think the mormon church is trying to buy public property? To make it private so they can control what is said there and who says it. You also seem to be a legalist. You seem toforgetcommon decency when there are "laws" that say you can do something. Read Alexander Soltzenitsyn's address to the 1975 graduating class at Harvard for an excellenttreatise on legalism and common decency. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyDate: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:35:17 -0800 free speech has limitations. We recognize that.DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law. On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear. For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT. Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise. However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside.DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogueDAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that theory?I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too?DAVEH: I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives like in return. IOWI don't think JW waved underwear in the faces of those he expects to listen to him. My guess is that JW understands the real nature of free speech, based on his experience speaking to an LDS audience from within the Tabernacle, while some SPers prefer to demonstrate their right to free speech by waving underwear on the sidewalk.David Miller wrote: Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free speech. The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places. I think
RE: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TTS
Dean, you are probably right. But we city-folk probably would not be caught in the woods with a hunter in the first place. We are too busy figuring out how to make our letters unchangeable. I use a web-based mailer (hotmial). While it will display HTML based email, I use it in "plain-text" mode. This feature is most likely transferred to your browser, which keeps my text in plain-text mode. This message I have written with the same emailer, but have turned on "richtext" mode, which allows me to add emphasis, italics, underscores, colors, different fonts and sizes, and other features. You should be able to change this message if you like...try it. Perry From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 07:39:03 -0500 [Original Message] From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 1/8/2006 9:03:57 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S Dean, I was wondering. How do you put something in a hole that is larger than the hole? cd: :-) One makes a larger hole in the top of the box or log then cover that hole so the poor unsuspecting victim can only find the smaller hole-jeez you city people kill me-no worries that you will get your hand stuck in the box-the hunter would trap you as you sat there studying how to get the shiny object into the box in the first place-ROFL. By the way how does one make his letters to so that they cannot be changed?With you and David I cannot even make my print bold or to a different size?. I see wisdom here. From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk]TO ALL TT"S Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:39:35 -0500 In the Mountains of Western North Carolina, where I live, the old timers used to hunt Raccoons in a most peculiar way. They would cut a hole in a box or a section of a log and put an object (usually something shiny such as rock or ball) into the hole, that was larger than the hole, and the raccoon would reach into the hole ,grasp the object and attempt to withdraw it from the hole, but due to the objects size would be unable to do so and because the raccoon wouldn't release the object he would become trapped and lose his fur and his life. But man on the other hand was created in the image of Almighty God, who is very creative, would not be trapped in such a manner-we would simply release the object and try some other method of getting this prize. Here on TT I see many "raccoons" becoming trapped for lack of creativity as they expect different results from the same approach-which is error. I highly recommend trying a different approach so as to use the nature God gave us.I am not suggesting compromise by any means- but to have fun using creativity as the catalyst for that fun. He that has an ear let him hear. Yours in Christ, Carroll D Moore. -- "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] TO ALL TTS
David, you are right. The example I recall was putting fruit in a jar with monkeys. Once they grabbed the fruit, they could not get the fruit and theirhand out of the jar, and refused to let go. I was playing a bit with Dean. Perry From:"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo:TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject:Re: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"SDate:Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:12:31 -0500Perry wrote: Dean, I was wondering. How do you put something in a hole that is larger than the hole?Actually, the item itself is not larger than the hole.It is the combinedpaw and item which is larger than the hole.I think you knew that Perry,you are just trying to help Dean use logic when he writes, eh? :-)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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "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] ** Moderator Comment **
You TT'rs are posting at a much faster rate than I can follow with my limited time during the week to moderate. So, please help me out...if you see what you believe is an ad hominem, even if it does not involve you, feel free to forward the email to me privately. I will follow up as I best I can. About the subject line: Re: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic This subject seems to have appeared first on one of Bill's posts...Bill, if I am wrong please say so. This heretic theme is getting old. heretic is strictly a relative term as we use it...relative to our own beliefs about our faith. And, it seems that even if we agree with a fellow Christian in XX% of their theology, but they do not agree with one of our pet doctrines, then we label them a heretic. I think we mostly agree that none of us are 100% correct 100% of the time with respect to our theology. Therefore, at times we all could be called heretic by others that do not agree with us (and probably have been!) Rather than call fellow Christians heretic, why not soundly debate the issue, and if no agreement is reached, then agree to disagree. Perry the Moderator -- 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] TO ALL TTS
Dean, I was wondering. How do you put something in a hole that is larger than the hole? From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TTS Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:39:35 -0500 In the Mountains of Western North Carolina, where I live, the old timers used to hunt Raccoons in a most peculiar way. They would cut a hole in a box or a section of a log and put an object (usually something shiny such as rock or ball) into the hole, that was larger than the hole, and the raccoon would reach into the hole ,grasp the object and attempt to withdraw it from the hole, but due to the objects size would be unable to do so and because the raccoon wouldn't release the object he would become trapped and lose his fur and his life. But man on the other hand was created in the image of Almighty God, who is very creative, would not be trapped in such a manner-we would simply release the object and try some other method of getting this prize. Here on TT I see many raccoons becoming trapped for lack of creativity as they expect different results from the same approach-which is error. I highly recommend trying a different approach so as to use the nature God gave us.I am not suggesting compromise by any means- but to have fun using creativity as the catalyst for that fun. He that has an ear let him hear. Yours in Christ, Carroll D Moore. -- 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] ** moderator comment **
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... cult-apostles like DavidM... Gary, your calling DM a cult-apostle is a direct attack on him. He does not claim to be an apostle, and adding cult to that erroneous label makes it an ad-hominem reference. I encourage you to retract that ad-hominem reference and ask you to refrain from using such references in the future. Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] TIME WELL WASTED - Slogan of the comedy channel
In your opinion, is it also possible to espouse/articulate a false jesus, and experience a false jesus? From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] TIME WELL WASTED - Slogan of the comedy channel Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 06:55:37 -0500 Perhaps the 'dialogue' (?) most closely approximating this slogan on TT is that which purports to take place between the Mormon contingent and the Christians A paradigm shift is one way of speaking of a conversion. As to the possibility of DH converting to Christianity, the chances are the proverbial 'slim and none'. Similarly with respect to CPL converting to Mormonism, the chances are equivalent to that 'snowball... I should like to ask of each just what it would take to bring about such a conversion? Aside: IMO, it is possible to espouse/articulate a false jesus yet experience the real Jesus. IMO, the opposite is also possible. -- 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] Unsubscribe please
Perry wrote: Dave, in your temple ceremony, who does it depict Satan paying to preach his message? Then Dean wrote: A Baptist Preacher/Pastor as JD is. Then John wrote: Looking for that explanation, Dean. Looked like an insult to me a really agressive one, at that. Now, Perry comments: John, I did not see an insult in what Dean wrote. All he is saying is that the one being to paid to preach is A Baptist Preacher/Pastor as JD is [a preacher/pastor]. No need to be so sensitive. I really do not think Dean meant anything by it. Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Dave, in your temple ceremony, who does it depict Satan paying to preach his message? From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:21:18 -0800 * Protestants are just one detestable group of pagans in the group of gentiles. * * Doesn't it seem interesting that DaveH finds such intrique with a pagan group like the protestants.* DAVEH: What's with the pagan stuff, Perry. That sounds like something you guys have called me, but FTR..I do not want any TTers to think for one second that I consider any of you folks to be pagans. As for your mention of. /*they call everyone who is not a mormon a gentile*/ ..You really do not understand the nature of what that means, so you might want to be careful about pretending to know something you don't. It reflects poorly on your image, Perry. *he insists on calling us protestants as a disrespect.* DAVEH: Nonsense. I will give you the same advice I gave John.If you can't quote me exactly, then don't pretend to quote me at all by putting words in my mouth. FTRI have much more respect for Protestants than you will ever imagine, and as such I certainly have more respect for Protestants than I do for those who misquote me. Charles Perry Locke wrote: John, there is a higher level division amongst the mormons.../*they call everyone who is not a mormon a gentile*/.* Protestants are just one detestable group of pagans in the group of gentiles. * * Doesn't it seem interesting that DaveH finds such intrique with a pagan group like the protestants.* Their own founder claimed the mormon god told him that he should join NO denomination, and that ALL denominations were an abomination. As you have stated, even though most on this group do not consider themselves protestants per se and have identified themselves as being members of the church Jesus started, being members of the body of Christ, *he insists on calling us protestants as a disrespect.* If he respected us he would call us what we are...members of the body of Christ. Christians. Perry David, do you understand how the Mormons use this word protestant? Do you understand that I do not like that characterization? Do you understand that it is gross sectarianism that insists on the separation between RCC and those who reject papel authority? Do you know that there are millions of Catholics who do not accept Papel authority? Do you understand that I have a right to expect not to be branded with a Mormon slang word used by them to describe all who are not of the [Mormon] truth? protestant is another way of saying unbeleiver or pagan. We are not fooling anyone, here. I have seen their chat rooms !! Do you understand that when DH uses this word, he necessarily attaches to it ideas that are definitely not of my approveal? This should be an easily resolved issue. But it is not. The Mormons insist on using this word because that is what their buds do, in private. All Mormons I know use this word and in the same manner as Blaine and DH. Get off the pot and smell the roses. You are not scoring any points with the Mormons in this. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, do you understand the difference between a historical perspective and a philosophical one? Let's consider the philosophical concern a little more closely. A Protestant is defined broadly as a member of a church that rejects papal authority. - Prot·es·tant [noun] member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. - Aimee rejected papal authority. Do you, John, accept or reject the authority of the pope as being the vicar of 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] Mormonism Freemasonry
Blaine, do you consider protestants to be pagans? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:06:52 EST No doubt about it, those ancient groups were doing bad stuff, fertility cultism included. But what I am saying is documenting something from ancient times is always hard, and I seriously doubt tracing Freemasonry back to those times could be done with so much confidence in the findings as to be able to say confidently that such and such is true, or such and such is not true. In fact, that would be true of almost anything. Even Mormonism, which is barely two hundred years old, despite an abundance of records on the subject, still has much that cannot be said for certain about it. What it boils down to in too many cases is that basically, we express our opinions, pro and con, and that's about the best we can do. But I can say with a high degree of confidence, that although there are some similarities between free Masonry and the temple Endowment ceremony, there are far too many fundamental differences to conclude that one came from the other. I have, believe it or not, studied Free Masonry, and I am intimately familiar with the ceremony in the temple. There are just too many other possibilities. In a message dated 12/31/2005 4:00:12 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No it is way before that; the ancient fertility cults were practised in Canaan before God destroyed the Amorites. On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:01:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes: Blainerb: Freemasonry is obviously descended from the time when the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple and the walls of the city. It is one thing to say such as you have stated below, but quite another to show beyond reasonable doubt that your assertions are correct. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to double-check your sources. In a message dated 12/27/2005 8:04:59 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read the same Blaine and the Freemasonry rituals are based on the old Fertility Cult mystery religions which is the same kind of paganism that got the Canaanite Nations exiled from the Promised Land and destroyed. There is a sexual aspect to both. jt On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:06:14 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes: I am not aware of one, except to say, as JS did, that he joined the Freemasons to obtain whatever friendship and support they might offer in times of duress--as you are probably aware, he was arrested on false charges many times--0ver 40 times, as I recall--and abused both physically and verbally a lot of times by antis of his day. But I am sure if there is any official commentary from Church authorities, Kevin would know where it would be found. Especially if it could be used against the Church. :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/26/2005 10:08:36 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does the Mormon Church have an expressed opinion regarding freemasonary? -- 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] Dave, what does thi versemean to you?
Dave, will you tell us the mormon interpretation (or, at the very least, your interpretation) of the following verse? Exactly what is Paul trying to say here? 1 cor 9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. Thanks, Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTWPlease don't understand my above comment to mean that I agree with your statement. Don't worry, Dave. From past experience, I did not expect you to agree with my statement. But, I'm not trying to argue with you about itI just want to understand why you made it, and what you meant by it. I think it is pretty clear...my statement merely sunmmarizes the scriptures I cited. So, after you have taken the time to read the references in context, if you then do not agree, please let me know where we differ. Perry Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] /*_*The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. *_*/ DAVEH: Wow! I'd never heard that before, Perry. Is that something you just made up, or is that commonly believed by many Christians? *Dave, I take it you do not believe that statement, thinking I made it up, right? * Jesus had prophesied on many occasions that he would be raised up on the third day (Mat 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Loke 9:22; 18:33; 24:6,7; 24:46). Had he not been resurrected on the third day, that would have made him a false prophet, and all that he said and did would have been for naught. (1 Cor 15:13). Why did you think the guards were placed at the tomb? Why do you think the seal was placed on the tomb? (Mat 27:62-66) Everything Jesus did and said was ultimately hinged on the resurrection. So, yes, the resurrection is what gives the gospel it's power. Paul taught the resurrection: Acts 17:18 Power by the resurrection: Romans 1:4 If not risen, preaching and faith in vain: 1 Cor 15:13 The power of His resurrection: Phil 3:10 Begotten unto a lively hope by His resurrection : 1 Pet 1:3 * Dave, do you still think I was making it up? * Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] apostles and prophets
Dave, Your diatribe below is full of conjecture and assumptions. You can't add conjecture and assumptions to scripture to make it mean what you want. That is called scripture-twisting and proof-texting. I ask again, What did Paul preach that is not in the Bible? I will need Biblical references, as in book, chapter, and verse of course. Notice: no smilie. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:55:38 -0800 *what did Paul preach that is not in the Bible? I will need Biblical references* DAVEH: The easy example is from 1Cor 15:29. I bet there was a shepherd there by the name of Perriwinkle Lockenstein who when he heard Paul say _/Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?/_ .it somewhat confused him, so Perriwinkle asked Paul... /What do you mean, by _baptized for the dead_? Is that a pagan practice you are using to teach the Christian principle of the resurrection?/ ..and I think Paul's response to Perriwinkle might have been something similar to this. Don't you know, little Perriwinkle, that _/For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ/_.? And, surely you know that _/Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God/_. Wouldn't you think that those who never had the chance to be /baptized into Christ/ would like that opportunity? As we know that _/even baptism doth also now save us/_, Jesus _/went and preached unto the spirits in prison/_ after his death. _/For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit/_. Do you not understand that Jesus said, _/He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved/_? Jesus also said, /_And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned_. / For that reason, little Perriwinkle, it was not pagans I was referring to, but rather Christians are _/baptized for the dead/_, because they believe that baptism is a necessary covenant to make with the Lord in order to obtain salvation. *book, chapter, and verse of course.* DAVEH: *of course*If you really want me to provide the references for the above quotes, PerryI'd be happy to do so. But you smilie indicated you were not really seriously requesting such. However, it is easy enough for you to google each one that you want to reference. Charles Perry Locke wrote: /*Is it that you know Paul preached something that is not in the Bible? */ DAVEH: Yes, I do think so. Dave, *what did Paul preach that is not in the Bible? I will need Biblical references*, as in *book, chapter, and verse of course.* :-) Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] Dave, what does this verse mean to you?
Dave, you response does not appear to have anything at all to do with the question. Do you mind giving it a second try? will you tell us the mormon interpretation (or, at the very least, your interpretation) of the following verse? Exactly what is Paul trying to say here? 1 cor 9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] *will you tell us the mormon interpretation (or, at the very least, your interpretation* DAVEH: I'm not sure why you want to know my opinion on this, Perry. I thought you might prefer to delete my posts instead of responding to them, as you might think it would give me platform to preach Mormonism. :-) I don't see that Paul's mission was any different than the current day apostle of the LDS Church. He/they are a special witness of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I view their missions as being to testify of Jesus to as many people as they can. To do that efficiently, requires that they not tarry much to perform baptisms. That may have been particularly pertinent to Paul, as I suspect finding bodies of water sufficient for immersive baptisms would have occupied a fair amount of his time in an arid climate without the modern transportation conveniences we have now. Even so, baptisms can easily be performed by those given the authority to do so who are not so time constrained, which is the case now as it was in Jesus' time. We do not have record of our Lord performing baptisms, yet he set the example by being baptized himself. Why would we expect Paul (or latter-day apostles) to be any different? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, *will you tell us the mormon interpretation (or, at the very least, your interpretation*) of the following verse? Exactly what is Paul trying to say here? 1 cor 9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. Thanks, Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] apostles and prophets
David, Paul says it best: 1 Cor 1:22-25; 2:1-2; 15:12-18. After saying many times that he would be raised on the third day, had He not been, He would have been proven a false prophet. All that He taught would have been nullified. There would be no gospel (1 Cor 15:12-18). After all, isn't the resurrection part of the gospel? It was not complete until the resurrection. Perry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:01:51 -0500 Perry wrote: The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. I'm a little surprised by this statement. There are many Scriptures that indicate that the preaching of the gospel by Jesus and his apostles did have power. Jesus indicated that people were pressing into the kingdom of God. They did many miracles and healed a great many people. I certainly understand how the resurrection is a central part of the gospel, being a kind of climax of the extent of the power of the gospel, but to say that the gospel did not even have power until he was raised from the dead is a bit of an overstatement from my perspective. Would you like me to take time to cite some Scripture indicating salvation before the resurrection, and of the power of the gospel to heal the sick and raise the dead? 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] The cross of Christ
I used to be bothered by the use of CE instead of AD until I realized that it can also mean Christian Era. However, I still prefer and use AD. Wikipedia: Common Era, Current Era, or Christian Era (this year is 2006 CE). Merriam-Webster: chemical engineer, civil engineer, Christian Era -- often punctuated; Common Era -- often punctuated Dictionary.com: Com·mon Era n. Abbr. C.E. The period coinciding with the Christian era. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:51:13 -0500 IFF BC/AD/BCE as employed by Mormon/Christian are absent CONTENT then, indeed you are correct. IMO, no word is employed without content, DavidM, therefore, you are INCORRECT. Y'all sound a little testy, David. That's why I mentioned anger. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 11:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Lance wrote: Syntax/Semantics, DavidM. When the NAME is employed, it is filled out with a meaning. If your meaning and theirs (the Mormons) is one and the same then, that's your problem. In regards to our date system, when I say BC or AD, I think we are talking about the same historical person named Jesus Christ. Do you see it differently? Lance wrote: Watch that anger, DavidM. Are you upset today, Lance? What anger are you talking about? I'm having a very wonderful, peace filled, Christ centered day, thank you. 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
David wrote: Perry wrote: David, Paul says it best: 1 Cor 1:22-25; 2:1-2; 15:12-18. Your first two passages speak of him CRUCIFIED and not a word about his resurrection. In Paul's mention of the crucifixion, the resurrection was implicit. Many were crucified, why would Jesus' be any different unless the resurrection was in view? The reference to crucifuxion also would bring to mind OT prophecies relating to the crucifixion of the Messiah, thus, the resurrection. Perry wrote: After saying many times that he would be raised on the third day, had He not been, He would have been proven a false prophet. I don't have the perspective that he said it many times. What I mean is that the resurrection was not central to the gospel of Christ BEFORE the actual event of his resurrection. Otherwise, why were they not expecting it? Both David and Isaiah prophecied the resurrection. Surely those familiar with the Prophets would have expected this, especially the Bereans (Acts 17:11), if, indeed, Jesus was the Messiah. Their accepting the gospel prior to the resurrection was based on the belief that Jesus WAS the messaiah, or at least that he was the Son of God, and on that faith their sins were forgiven. Had he NOT been resurrected, then their faith would have been in vain, and they still would be in sin. (1 Cor 15 again). Acts 13:32-37: 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, [NOTE: glad tidings: Strongs: G2097 #949;#965;#787;#945;#947;#947;#949;#955;#953;#769;#950;#969; euaggelizo#772; yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo From G2095 and G32; to announce good news (evangelize) especially the gospel: - declare, bring (declare, show) glad (good) tidings, preach (the gospel).] 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. 35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. Cross references: Acts 13:33 - Psalm 2:7 Acts 13:34 - Isaiah 55:3 Acts 13:35 - Psalm 16:10 References from http://www.lamblion.com/articles/prophecy/fcp/fcp-07.php Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
David, I see your point...I, too, beleive that the cross is central, but still, without the resurrection the gospel would have been meaningless. Preaching would have been in vain...faith would have been in vain. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:04:52 -0500 Perry wrote: In Paul's mention of the crucifixion, the resurrection was implicit. Many were crucified, why would Jesus' be any different unless the resurrection was in view? The difference is that Jesus is the only leader in history who ever went TO the cross of his own will and doctrine. Hitler was killed too, but it was under very different circumstances. The doctrine of the cross is very important. Granted, the doctrine of the resurrection is necessary for it to have meaning and fulfillment, but I think the cross is primary with the resurrection being secondary rather than the other way around. The doctrine of the cross is where we live every day. The doctrine of the resurrection is a hope we have that gives us the strength to walk in the doctrine of the cross on a daily basis. Perry wrote: The reference to crucifuxion also would bring to mind OT prophecies relating to the crucifixion of the Messiah, thus, the resurrection. There is not much in the OT concerning the resurrection, Perry. Several veiled prophecies that can be read in a different way is about it. Perry wrote: Both David and Isaiah prophecied the resurrection. Surely those familiar with the Prophets would have expected this, especially the Bereans (Acts 17:11), if, indeed, Jesus was the Messiah. Their accepting the gospel prior to the resurrection was based on the belief that Jesus WAS the messaiah, or at least that he was the Son of God, and on that faith their sins were forgiven. Had he NOT been resurrected, then their faith would have been in vain, and they still would be in sin. (1 Cor 15 again). They had read these prophecies, but the meaning eluded them prior to the resurrection event. Why? Partly because they had believed the gospel already and had preached it and saw the power of the gospel even without knowledge of the resurrection of Christ. Again, I am not saying that the resurrection is not important. I'm simply saying that the preaching of the gospel began before the resurrection. For more than 3 years, the preaching of the gospel did not include the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The only resurrection they had perhaps preached was the resurrection of the saints on the last day, but even that took second fiddle to the primary message of the gospel which was the message that the kingdom of God is here now... time to get in. 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] apostles and prophets
David, I will consider this as agreement. I believe it is the resurrection that gave the gospel its power...you believe it was people seeing the risen Jesuswhom they never would have seen had he NOT been resurrected. I consider these ALL part of a larger picture called the resurrection. From the timeMary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1-8) saw the empty tomb until He ascended into heaven. It all worked together to validate his Messiahship and fulfill prophecy. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 11:10:16 -0800 DAVEH: I really don't want to argue with your comment in a way that you might think I'm denigrating it, Perry. But, I will give you my short view in contrast. The guards were put there by those who feared Jesus' friends would steal his body (in the middle of the night, I would think) in order to make Jesus' prophecies appear to be true. The fact that his body did disappear does not in itself mean he arose from the dead. (Please don't think I'm minimizing the resurrectionI'm merely trying to consider how the Romans would have thought about it in a logical sense.) So...an empty cross in itself did not indicate a resurrection. Not even an empty tomb would indicate it either, as the Romans would have just thought his body had been removed.and, that is the story they would have concocted in an attempt to convince others that the disappearance of Jesus' body was a natural, though contrived, event. Their attempt to prevent the disappearance, failed though. Have you ever thought about what excuse the guards might have given for the missing body? Since Jesus appeared to his disciples shortly thereafter, the Biblical account really doesn't pursue this line of thinking. But, had Jesus not appeared to his followers, the guards would have had to contrived some story saying that Jesus' friends had stolen him away, even though they had valiantly tried to stop them. There is no way they could have admitted the resurrection of Christ, without revealing the error of their ways. (Which they could have done if they had repented, but then they probably would have been subject to death for their incompetence.) I guess I'm rambling a bit here, Perry...sorry. What really gave the resurrection power, so to speak, was the appearance of the resurrected Christ to his believers. And...some of them weren't so convinced of his resurrection, until they actually saw AND FELT the prints of the nails. Once that happened, no excuses by the government, or guards or anybody could overrule the fact that they had seen and talked to the Risen Christ. I just don't think the empty sepulcherwhich we know meant he had risen.had (or would have had) nearly the same effect as his personal appearance. Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTWPlease don't understand my above comment to mean that I agree with your statement. Don't worry, Dave. From past experience, I did not expect you to agree with my statement. But, I'm not trying to argue with you about itI just want to understand why you made it, and what you meant by it. I think it is pretty clear...my statement merely sunmmarizes the scriptures I cited. So, after you have taken the time to read the references in context, if you then do not agree, please let me know where we differ. Perry Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] /*_*The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. *_*/ DAVEH: Wow! I'd never heard that before, Perry. Is that something you just made up, or is that commonly believed by many Christians? *Dave, I take it you do not believe that statement, thinking I made it up, right? * Jesus had prophesied on many occasions that he would be raised up on the third day (Mat 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Loke 9:22; 18:33; 24:6,7; 24:46). Had he not been resurrected on the third day, that would have made him a false prophet, and all that he said and did would have been for naught. (1 Cor 15:13). Why did you think the guards were placed at the tomb? Why do you think the seal was placed on the tomb? (Mat 27:62-66) Everything Jesus did and said was ultimately hinged on the resurrection. So, yes, the resurrection is what gives the gospel it's power. Paul taught the resurrection: Acts 17:18 Power by the resurrection: Romans 1:4 If not risen, preaching and faith in vain: 1 Cor 15:13 The power of His resurrection: Phil 3:10 Begotten unto a lively hope by His resurrection : 1 Pet 1:3 * Dave, do you still think I was making it up? * Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
I meant to address the response below to Dave. From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:39:27 -0800 David, I will consider this as agreement. I believe it is the resurrection that gave the gospel its power...you believe it was people seeing the risen Jesuswhom they never would have seen had he NOT been resurrected. I consider these ALL part of a larger picture called the resurrection. From the timeMary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1-8) saw the empty tomb until He ascended into heaven. It all worked together to validate his Messiahship and fulfill prophecy. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 11:10:16 -0800 DAVEH: I really don't want to argue with your comment in a way that you might think I'm denigrating it, Perry. But, I will give you my short view in contrast. The guards were put there by those who feared Jesus' friends would steal his body (in the middle of the night, I would think) in order to make Jesus' prophecies appear to be true. The fact that his body did disappear does not in itself mean he arose from the dead. (Please don't think I'm minimizing the resurrectionI'm merely trying to consider how the Romans would have thought about it in a logical sense.) So...an empty cross in itself did not indicate a resurrection. Not even an empty tomb would indicate it either, as the Romans would have just thought his body had been removed.and, that is the story they would have concocted in an attempt to convince others that the disappearance of Jesus' body was a natural, though contrived, event. Their attempt to prevent the disappearance, failed though. Have you ever thought about what excuse the guards might have given for the missing body? Since Jesus appeared to his disciples shortly thereafter, the Biblical account really doesn't pursue this line of thinking. But, had Jesus not appeared to his followers, the guards would have had to contrived some story saying that Jesus' friends had stolen him away, even though they had valiantly tried to stop them. There is no way they could have admitted the resurrection of Christ, without revealing the error of their ways. (Which they could have done if they had repented, but then they probably would have been subject to death for their incompetence.) I guess I'm rambling a bit here, Perry...sorry. What really gave the resurrection power, so to speak, was the appearance of the resurrected Christ to his believers. And...some of them weren't so convinced of his resurrection, until they actually saw AND FELT the prints of the nails. Once that happened, no excuses by the government, or guards or anybody could overrule the fact that they had seen and talked to the Risen Christ. I just don't think the empty sepulcherwhich we know meant he had risen.had (or would have had) nearly the same effect as his personal appearance. Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTWPlease don't understand my above comment to mean that I agree with your statement. Don't worry, Dave. From past experience, I did not expect you to agree with my statement. But, I'm not trying to argue with you about itI just want to understand why you made it, and what you meant by it. I think it is pretty clear...my statement merely sunmmarizes the scriptures I cited. So, after you have taken the time to read the references in context, if you then do not agree, please let me know where we differ. Perry Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] /*_*The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. *_*/ DAVEH: Wow! I'd never heard that before, Perry. Is that something you just made up, or is that commonly believed by many Christians? *Dave, I take it you do not believe that statement, thinking I made it up, right? * Jesus had prophesied on many occasions that he would be raised up on the third day (Mat 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Loke 9:22; 18:33; 24:6,7; 24:46). Had he not been resurrected on the third day, that would have made him a false prophet, and all that he said and did would have been for naught. (1 Cor 15:13). Why did you think the guards were placed at the tomb? Why do you think the seal was placed on the tomb? (Mat 27:62-66) Everything Jesus did and said was ultimately hinged on the resurrection. So, yes, the resurrection is what gives the gospel it's power. Paul taught the resurrection: Acts 17:18 Power by the resurrection: Romans 1:4 If not risen, preaching and faith in vain: 1 Cor 15:13 The power of His resurrection: Phil 3:10 Begotten unto
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Dave, this discussion has become a joke. Eitgher you don't get it or you are just playing. Either way, I'm out. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:43:55 -0800 * Your diatribe below is full of conjecture and assumptions.* DAVEH: LOL.Is that a problem for you, Perry? Isn't that what you asked for..? :-) * I ask again, What did Paul preach that is not in the Bible?* DAVEH: I see you did not really read what I posted below, Perry. I quoted one passage of Jesus speaking to the BofM people that clarified what I believe was taught in the Bible, but not clarified to the point that many Christians misunderstand what Jesus (and hence, Paul who claims to have taught the gospel fully) taught. /*I will need Biblical references, as in book, chapter, and verse of course*/ DAVEH: Were you too lazy to look it up? Mk 16:16 FWIWthis Bible browser works very well... http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/ Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, * Your diatribe below is full of conjecture and assumptions.* You can't add conjecture and assumptions to scripture to make it mean what you want. That is called scripture-twisting and proof-texting. * I ask again, What did Paul preach that is not in the Bible?* /*I will need Biblical references, as in book, chapter, and verse of course*/. Notice: no smilie. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:55:38 -0800 *what did Paul preach that is not in the Bible? I will need Biblical references* DAVEH: The easy example is from 1Cor 15:29. I bet there was a shepherd there by the name of Perriwinkle Lockenstein who when he heard Paul say _/Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?/_ .it somewhat confused him, so Perriwinkle asked Paul... /What do you mean, by _baptized for the dead_? Is that a pagan practice you are using to teach the Christian principle of the resurrection?/ ..and I think Paul's response to Perriwinkle might have been something similar to this. Don't you know, little Perriwinkle, that _/For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ/_.? And, surely you know that _/Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God/_. Wouldn't you think that those who never had the chance to be /baptized into Christ/ would like that opportunity? As we know that _/even baptism doth also now save us/_, Jesus _/went and preached unto the spirits in prison/_ after his death. _/For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit/_. Do you not understand that Jesus said, _/He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved/_? Jesus also said, /_And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned_. / For that reason, little Perriwinkle, it was not pagans I was referring to, but rather Christians are _/baptized for the dead/_, because they believe that baptism is a necessary covenant to make with the Lord in order to obtain salvation. *book, chapter, and verse of course.* DAVEH: *of course*If you really want me to provide the references for the above quotes, PerryI'd be happy to do so. But you smilie indicated you were not really seriously requesting such. However, it is easy enough for you to google each one that you want to reference. Charles Perry Locke wrote: /*Is it that you know Paul preached something that is not in the Bible? */ DAVEH: Yes, I do think so. Dave, *what did Paul preach that is not in the Bible? I will need Biblical references*, as in *book, chapter, and verse of course.* :-) Perry ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] Dave, what does this verse mean to you?
I understood your original post...it just has nothing to sdo with the question. Again, eiither you don't get it or you are playing around. I'm out on this one, too. I haven't got time to play the stupidity game. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dave, what does this verse mean to you? Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:48:56 -0800 *Do you mind giving it a second try? * DAVEH: OK Perry, let me succinctly explain what I tried to explain before. Paul was a busy guytoo busy to baptize many. His time was better spent traveling to meet more people, than to spend time trying to baptize those who heard his testimony. He left that job to others who had the proper authority to do so, in order that he could testify of Jesus (the mission of an apostle) to many more. Did my second effort make it any easier to comprehend, Perry? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, you response does not appear to have anything at all to do with the question. *Do you mind giving it a second try? * will you tell us the mormon interpretation (or, at the very least, your interpretation) of the following verse? Exactly what is Paul trying to say here? 1 cor 9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] *will you tell us the mormon interpretation (or, at the very least, your interpretation* DAVEH: I'm not sure why you want to know my opinion on this, Perry. I thought you might prefer to delete my posts instead of responding to them, as you might think it would give me platform to preach Mormonism. :-) I don't see that Paul's mission was any different than the current day apostle of the LDS Church. He/they are a special witness of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I view their missions as being to testify of Jesus to as many people as they can. To do that efficiently, requires that they not tarry much to perform baptisms. That may have been particularly pertinent to Paul, as I suspect finding bodies of water sufficient for immersive baptisms would have occupied a fair amount of his time in an arid climate without the modern transportation conveniences we have now. Even so, baptisms can easily be performed by those given the authority to do so who are not so time constrained, which is the case now as it was in Jesus' time. We do not have record of our Lord performing baptisms, yet he set the example by being baptized himself. Why would we expect Paul (or latter-day apostles) to be any different? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, *will you tell us the mormon interpretation (or, at the very least, your interpretation*) of the following verse? Exactly what is Paul trying to say here? 1 cor 9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. Thanks, Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please
You tell us, John. How many times have you heard that from the right wingers? Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:13:32 + How many times have we heard from right wingers that it is not ad hom if it i true!!?? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] You were simply described. DAVEH: Lance, may I ask you where you draw the line on an ad-hom? Is it possible describing somebody as a pompous ass to ever be an ad-hom in your opinion? Lance Muir wrote: YOU WERE NOT INSULTED, DAVIDM! You were simply described. An expression was employed that is no worse than 'brain fart'. Cool it, oh defensive one! -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] apostles and prophets
John, there is a higher level division amongst the mormons...they call everyone who is not a mormon a gentile. Protestants are just one detestable group of pagans in the group of gentiles. Doesn't it seem interesting that DaveH finds such intrique with a pagan group like the protestants. Their own founder claimed the mormon god told him that he should join NO denomination, and that ALL denominations were an abomination. As you have stated, even though most on this group do not consider themselves protestants per se and have identified themselves as being members of the church Jesus started, being members of the body of Christ, he insists on calling us protestants as a disrespect. If he respected us he would call us what we are...members of the body of Christ. Christians. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:50:33 + David, do you understand how the Mormons use this word protestant? Do you understand that I do not like that characterization? Do you understand that it is gross sectarianism that insists on the separation between RCC and those who reject papel authority? Do you know that there are millions of Catholics who do not accept Papel authority? Do you understand that I have a right to expect not to be branded with a Mormon slang word used by them to describe all who are not of the [Mormon] truth? protestant is another way of saying unbeleiver or pagan. We are not fooling anyone, here. I have seen their chat rooms !! Do you understand that when DH uses this word, he necessarily attaches to it ideas that are definitely not of my approveal? This should be an easily resolved issue. But it is not. The Mormons insist on using this word because that is what their buds do, in private. All Mormons I know use this word and in the same manner as Blaine and DH. Get off the pot and smell the roses. You are not scoring any points with the Mormons in this. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, do you understand the difference between a historical perspective and a philosophical one? Let's consider the philosophical concern a little more closely. A Protestant is defined broadly as a member of a church that rejects papal authority. - Prot·es·tant [noun] member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. - Aimee rejected papal authority. Do you, John, accept or reject the authority of the pope as being the vicar of Christ? Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Poor DM. I have not been a part of the Churches of Christ for some 32 years. My denominational background has nothing to do with my theology at this late date. Secindly, Aimee Semple McPherson is the founder of Four Square. She was not responding to a negative RCC consideration. Certainly, I am no protestant and I have made the reasoning for this claim quite clear. Mean versus green are the only considrations I can see for the continued use of the word and the continued need to attach me to the Churches of Christ. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] DaveH, you have to understand that John's background is Church of Christ, DAVEH: I did remember that, DavidM. Even so, as I remember, WIKI painted the CofC as Protestant as well. However, in a recent discussion with you, I thought I understood John to say that he currently is worshiping with a 4Sq group, which to me indicates an association with a Protestant relationship, as I think WIKI defined them. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: If I remember correctly, you are a 4Sq adherent, which as I understand it is a branch of Protestantism. John wrote: That denomination did not come from the Portestant response to RCC theology. If I am remembering correctly, the historical root to the Four Square church is Baptist. Aimee Semple McPherson at one time claimed to have been ordained by the Baptists. I think later on she was ordained by the Assemblies of God, but later disowned those credentials. John wrote: I see protestant as clubhouse name for those who are apostate. That is how I believe the term is used. I have seen posts from Mormon to Mormon that gives me this opinion. DaveH, you have to understand that John's
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
John, I have come across no such website as of yet. And probably for a good reason. In the mid 80's I met and became friends with a fellow named Bob Passentino who, with his wife, would eventually come to start a group called Answers in Action. I knew little, if anything, about the mormon church, but I do recall him telling me that the mormons refused to set a date indicating when the apostacy occurred, because doing so would tie their restoration to a specific period of the early church. If they set a date on the apostacy, then all could see that JS did not really restore anything. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:54:08 + Unfortunately, I do agree. Now that I think of it, you are right in your statement of the use of the word gentile. do you know of any websites , by Mormons , that give an outline of the Church suitable for comparison of the preApostate First Church? jd -- Original message -- From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, there is a higher level division amongst the mormons...they call everyone who is not a mormon a gentile. Protestants are just one detestable group of pagans in the group of gentiles. Doesn't it seem interesting that DaveH finds such intrique with a pagan group like the protestants. Their own founder claimed the mormon god told him that he should join NO denomination, and that ALL denominations were an abomination. As you have stated, even though most on this group do not consider themselves protestants per se and have identified themselves as being members of the church Jesus started, being members of the body of Christ, he insists on calling us protestants as a disrespect. If he respected us he would call us what we are...members of the body of Christ. Christians. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:50:33 + David, do you understand how the Mormons use this word protestant? Do you understand that I do not like that characterization? Do you understand that it is gross sectarianism that insists on the separation between RCC and those who reject papel authority? Do you know that there are millions of Catholics who do not accept Papel authority? Do you understand that I have a right to expect not to be branded with a Mormon slang word used by them to describe all who are not of the [Mormon] truth? protestant is another way of saying unbeleiver or pagan. We are not fooling anyone, here. I have seen their chat rooms !! Do you understand that when DH uses this word, he necessarily attaches to it ideas that are definitely not of my approveal? This should be an easily resolved issue. But it is not. The Mormons insist on using this word because that is what their buds do, in private. All Mormons I know use this word and in the same manner as Blaine and DH. Get off the pot and smell the roses. You are not scoring any points with the Mormons in this. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller John, do you understand the difference between a historical perspective and a philosophical one? Let's consider the philosophical concern a little more closely. A Protestant is defined broadly as a member of a church that rejects papal authority. - Prot·es·tant [noun] member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. - Aimee rejected papal authority. Do you, John, accept or reject the authority of the pope as being the vicar of Christ? Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Poor DM. I have not been a part of the Churches of Christ for some 32 years. My denominational background has nothing to do with my theology at this late date. Secindly, Aimee Semple McPherson is the founder of Four Square. She was not responding to a negative RCC consideration. Certainly, I am no protestant and I have made the reasoning for this claim quite clear. Mean versus green are the only considrations I can see for the continued use of the word and the continued need to attach me to the Churches of Christ. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave DaveH, you have to understand
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
This is not a mormon site, but does a good job of aying out the apostacy situation: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON2.HTM. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:54:08 + Unfortunately, I do agree. Now that I think of it, you are right in your statement of the use of the word gentile. do you know of any websites , by Mormons , that give an outline of the Church suitable for comparison of the preApostate First Church? jd -- Original message -- From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, there is a higher level division amongst the mormons...they call everyone who is not a mormon a gentile. Protestants are just one detestable group of pagans in the group of gentiles. Doesn't it seem interesting that DaveH finds such intrique with a pagan group like the protestants. Their own founder claimed the mormon god told him that he should join NO denomination, and that ALL denominations were an abomination. As you have stated, even though most on this group do not consider themselves protestants per se and have identified themselves as being members of the church Jesus started, being members of the body of Christ, he insists on calling us protestants as a disrespect. If he respected us he would call us what we are...members of the body of Christ. Christians. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:50:33 + David, do you understand how the Mormons use this word protestant? Do you understand that I do not like that characterization? Do you understand that it is gross sectarianism that insists on the separation between RCC and those who reject papel authority? Do you know that there are millions of Catholics who do not accept Papel authority? Do you understand that I have a right to expect not to be branded with a Mormon slang word used by them to describe all who are not of the [Mormon] truth? protestant is another way of saying unbeleiver or pagan. We are not fooling anyone, here. I have seen their chat rooms !! Do you understand that when DH uses this word, he necessarily attaches to it ideas that are definitely not of my approveal? This should be an easily resolved issue. But it is not. The Mormons insist on using this word because that is what their buds do, in private. All Mormons I know use this word and in the same manner as Blaine and DH. Get off the pot and smell the roses. You are not scoring any points with the Mormons in this. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller John, do you understand the difference between a historical perspective and a philosophical one? Let's consider the philosophical concern a little more closely. A Protestant is defined broadly as a member of a church that rejects papal authority. - Prot·es·tant [noun] member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. - Aimee rejected papal authority. Do you, John, accept or reject the authority of the pope as being the vicar of Christ? Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Poor DM. I have not been a part of the Churches of Christ for some 32 years. My denominational background has nothing to do with my theology at this late date. Secindly, Aimee Semple McPherson is the founder of Four Square. She was not responding to a negative RCC consideration. Certainly, I am no protestant and I have made the reasoning for this claim quite clear. Mean versus green are the only considrations I can see for the continued use of the word and the continued need to attach me to the Churches of Christ. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave DaveH, you have to understand that John's background is Church of Christ, DAVEH: I did remember that, DavidM. Even so, as I remember, WIKI painted the CofC as Protestant as well. However, in a recent discussion with you, I thought I understood John to say that he currently is worshiping with a 4Sq group, which to me indicates an association with a Protestant relationship, as I think WIKI defined them. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: If I remember correctly, you
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
I didn't have time to check all of the articles, but you might find something interesting here: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:54:08 + Unfortunately, I do agree. Now that I think of it, you are right in your statement of the use of the word gentile. do you know of any websites , by Mormons , that give an outline of the Church suitable for comparison of the preApostate First Church? jd -- Original message -- From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, there is a higher level division amongst the mormons...they call everyone who is not a mormon a gentile. Protestants are just one detestable group of pagans in the group of gentiles. Doesn't it seem interesting that DaveH finds such intrique with a pagan group like the protestants. Their own founder claimed the mormon god told him that he should join NO denomination, and that ALL denominations were an abomination. As you have stated, even though most on this group do not consider themselves protestants per se and have identified themselves as being members of the church Jesus started, being members of the body of Christ, he insists on calling us protestants as a disrespect. If he respected us he would call us what we are...members of the body of Christ. Christians. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:50:33 + David, do you understand how the Mormons use this word protestant? Do you understand that I do not like that characterization? Do you understand that it is gross sectarianism that insists on the separation between RCC and those who reject papel authority? Do you know that there are millions of Catholics who do not accept Papel authority? Do you understand that I have a right to expect not to be branded with a Mormon slang word used by them to describe all who are not of the [Mormon] truth? protestant is another way of saying unbeleiver or pagan. We are not fooling anyone, here. I have seen their chat rooms !! Do you understand that when DH uses this word, he necessarily attaches to it ideas that are definitely not of my approveal? This should be an easily resolved issue. But it is not. The Mormons insist on using this word because that is what their buds do, in private. All Mormons I know use this word and in the same manner as Blaine and DH. Get off the pot and smell the roses. You are not scoring any points with the Mormons in this. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller John, do you understand the difference between a historical perspective and a philosophical one? Let's consider the philosophical concern a little more closely. A Protestant is defined broadly as a member of a church that rejects papal authority. - Prot·es·tant [noun] member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. - Aimee rejected papal authority. Do you, John, accept or reject the authority of the pope as being the vicar of Christ? Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Poor DM. I have not been a part of the Churches of Christ for some 32 years. My denominational background has nothing to do with my theology at this late date. Secindly, Aimee Semple McPherson is the founder of Four Square. She was not responding to a negative RCC consideration. Certainly, I am no protestant and I have made the reasoning for this claim quite clear. Mean versus green are the only considrations I can see for the continued use of the word and the continued need to attach me to the Churches of Christ. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave DaveH, you have to understand that John's background is Church of Christ, DAVEH: I did remember that, DavidM. Even so, as I remember, WIKI painted the CofC as Protestant as well. However, in a recent discussion with you, I thought I understood John to say that he currently is worshiping with a 4Sq group, which to me indicates an association with a Protestant relationship, as I think WIKI defined them. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: If I remember correctly, you
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
This one looks promising. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/restoring/ Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:54:08 + Unfortunately, I do agree. Now that I think of it, you are right in your statement of the use of the word gentile. do you know of any websites , by Mormons , that give an outline of the Church suitable for comparison of the preApostate First Church? jd -- Original message -- From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, there is a higher level division amongst the mormons...they call everyone who is not a mormon a gentile. Protestants are just one detestable group of pagans in the group of gentiles. Doesn't it seem interesting that DaveH finds such intrique with a pagan group like the protestants. Their own founder claimed the mormon god told him that he should join NO denomination, and that ALL denominations were an abomination. As you have stated, even though most on this group do not consider themselves protestants per se and have identified themselves as being members of the church Jesus started, being members of the body of Christ, he insists on calling us protestants as a disrespect. If he respected us he would call us what we are...members of the body of Christ. Christians. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org, Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:50:33 + David, do you understand how the Mormons use this word protestant? Do you understand that I do not like that characterization? Do you understand that it is gross sectarianism that insists on the separation between RCC and those who reject papel authority? Do you know that there are millions of Catholics who do not accept Papel authority? Do you understand that I have a right to expect not to be branded with a Mormon slang word used by them to describe all who are not of the [Mormon] truth? protestant is another way of saying unbeleiver or pagan. We are not fooling anyone, here. I have seen their chat rooms !! Do you understand that when DH uses this word, he necessarily attaches to it ideas that are definitely not of my approveal? This should be an easily resolved issue. But it is not. The Mormons insist on using this word because that is what their buds do, in private. All Mormons I know use this word and in the same manner as Blaine and DH. Get off the pot and smell the roses. You are not scoring any points with the Mormons in this. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller John, do you understand the difference between a historical perspective and a philosophical one? Let's consider the philosophical concern a little more closely. A Protestant is defined broadly as a member of a church that rejects papal authority. - Prot·es·tant [noun] member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. - Aimee rejected papal authority. Do you, John, accept or reject the authority of the pope as being the vicar of Christ? Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Poor DM. I have not been a part of the Churches of Christ for some 32 years. My denominational background has nothing to do with my theology at this late date. Secindly, Aimee Semple McPherson is the founder of Four Square. She was not responding to a negative RCC consideration. Certainly, I am no protestant and I have made the reasoning for this claim quite clear. Mean versus green are the only considrations I can see for the continued use of the word and the continued need to attach me to the Churches of Christ. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave DaveH, you have to understand that John's background is Church of Christ, DAVEH: I did remember that, DavidM. Even so, as I remember, WIKI painted the CofC as Protestant as well. However, in a recent discussion with you, I thought I understood John to say that he currently is worshiping with a 4Sq group, which to me indicates an association with a Protestant relationship, as I think WIKI defined them. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: If I remember correctly, you are a 4Sq adherent, which as I understand it is a branch of Protestantism
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] *The operative point in our discussion is not that Christians would or would not welcome new revelation...* DAVEH: To me, it is a very pertinent point. You made the claim, and from my experience it is not a claim I've heard any Christians previously make. If what you say is true, then it should be easy to hear the same words come from other Christian. So faryou are the only one I can remember saying such. My experience suggests that most Christians simply want to believe the heavens are closed. The operative point is whether He HAS allowed new revelation. The point, in particular, is whether the mormon works are scripture. THAT is the question, Dave. Not whether or not he COULD; we all know he COULD if he wished...we just beleive that the mormon works are not scripture. *No more needs to be done, or said to complete or augment the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is finished.* DAVEH: That is the attitude I've found so prevalent, that we LDS find so incongruous. It is prevalent because it says so in the Bible, Dave...you are arguing with Jesus. You are contradicting the Bible. That is allowed in mormonism...you (mormons) do it all the time. *If indeed Jude 3 and Hebrews 1-2 are true, there would be no gain (biblically...although perhaps personally) from adding to it. * DAVEH: It seems to me that continued revelation/Scripture could have significant *gain,* if for no other reason than answering Christian questions of doctrine. Not if it is truly finished as Jesus says. Not if Jude 3 and Hebrews 1:1-2 are correct. * There are a series of objective tests that books of the Bible had to meet before they were considered scripture (canonical), and against which new scripture is judged.* DAVEH: I've not heard of them..Where can those *objective tests * be found? See the URL in a subsequent post, plus the book I referenced. *That is why we must take heed to take 2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9 to heart.* DAVEH: It does cause one to wonder that if /[Gal 1:6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:/ .they were having such problems so soon, then does one suppose they may have had such problems in the 2 millennia since then. There will always be doubters, detractors, changers, liars, deceivers, Dave. Satan is out to destroy the gospel by turning as many as he can away from the Jesus and God of the Bible. The mormons seem to be one of his best foils, in my opinion. *We assume that Hebrews 1:1-2 is correct, in that in these last days God spoke to us through his Son.* DAVEH: Logically, that would present a dilemma if one assumes your understanding of it is correct, since all of the NT was written after Jesus died, and much of it characterizes the events that happened post crucification. Only a diilemma to those that are trying to justify false scripture. Jesus delivered the faith once...he IS the gospel message...the Word...the writers of the NT just documented it and its spread through the world. YOU are being ILLOGICAL if you think scripture had to be written while He was still alive. The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. *How honest a scholar are you Dave? Are you the man to do it? * DAVEH: As you well know, I'm not much of a scholar, Perry. I prefer to trust in the Lord over scholarship. What he has revealed to me via the Holy Ghost is more pertinent to my needs than a scholarly discussion. That's why I previously said that I did not join TT to change my religious perspective, but rather I'm here to find out why and how Protestants justify theirs. What? The burning in the bosom? And why, after being on TT for years, do you continue to challenge the same points over and over ad nausium? Why do you never learn although you have asked the same thing many times and have been told the same things over and over and over. Dave, you and I have had this VERY discussion at least once before. Why do you not remember that I am saying exactly the same things I said before, and you are giving exactly the same responses you gave before? Plus, i am not trying to change your religious perspective. Write it down this time so we don't have to go through this again next year, okay? When you ask the question again next year I'll remind you to check your notes. *I would not rely on Google for uncovering the truth about anything.* DAVEH: I was not asking you to use Google to discover truth, but rather use it to find evidence to support your theory that seemed rather flawed to me. I spent a few minutes trying to find others who expressed the same thing you did, but was unable to find it. As I've pointed out before, it is pretty hopeless to try to prove a negative. When you think of the vastness of the net, it will only be a few weeks before these TT posts will be googleable, and your
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:44:40 -0800 http://answers.org/theology/add_to_scripture.html *DAVEH: Is the guy who wrote this serious? And...do you subscribe to his logic, Perry? Rom 15: /[19] Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, *I have fully preached the gospel of Christ*./ That comment alone should cause one to wonder what Paul preached that was left out of the Bible. Ordo you believe everything Paul preached was included in the Bible? If Paul says he fully preached the gospel of Christ...then I believe he fully preached the gospel of Christ. What is your point? Is it that you know Paul preached something that is not in the Bible? I am missing your point, Dave...can you be a bit more explicit? Perry Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, I am going to pull a G here and augment my own post... Below is a reference to a page that begins to discuss some of the tests of canonicity. For a fuller discussion I recommend A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix. * http://answers.org/theology/add_to_scripture.html * Perry From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:34:43 -0800 Dave, Adding to the word is very dangerous business. If one is to believe Jude 3, and Hebrews 1-2, then one would logically assume that scripture is complete. The operative point in our discussion is not that Christians would or would not welcome new revelation...I beleive that most would if it could be demonstrated to be scripture... it is that we believe no new scripture HAS been revealed. But, as Jesus said on the cross...it is finished. His atoning work was complete. No more needs to be done, or said to complete or augment the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is finished. As for Revelation 22, I believe that is an admonition from the writer of Revelation not to change Revelation. However, I also beleive that the principle applies to all of scripture. If indeed Jude 3 and Hebrews 1-2 are true, there would be no gain (biblically...although perhaps personally) from adding to it. There are a series of objective tests that books of the Bible had to meet before they were considered scripture (canonical), and against which new scripture is judged. There were many other books that, although considered by some early christian groups to be scripture, did not meet these criteria. When the mormon extra-biblical works are put to these tests, they fail miserably. That is why we must take heed to take 2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9 to heart. The mormon works are heretical. As for your perception of Christians as myopic, I differ. First of all, we are totally in accord with scripture. We start with the biblical fact that itis finished. We assume that Hebrews 1:1-2 is correct, in that in these last days God spoke to us through his Son. We believe Jude 3 when it says that the faith was delivered once for all to the saints. We are applying objective tests to purported new scripture. We are being good Bereans and searching the scriptures daily to see if what latter day prophets are saying is true. We are testing the spirits of newly revealed scripture, including mormonism, and finding that it fails the tests of canonicity. My guess is that no one in the mormon theocracy has ever honestly applied these tests to scripture and truthfully reported their findings. How honest a scholar are you Dave? Are you the man to do it? Finally, I would not rely on Google for uncovering the truth about anything. Especially if my expectations of it's ability were too high, and my search techniques were lacking. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:53:47 -0800 * It is not additional revelation that we object to, per se, and many (if not most) Christians feel that if it is in God's will, additional revelation would be welcome.* DAVEH: That isn't the way I've understood most Protestants to believe. If so, then why is there such a reluctance to /add to the Word/, so to speak? When I've addressed the need for current revelation on TT in the past, some TTers have used Rev 22... /[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:/ .as their (faulty) logic in dismissing the option of God revealing more Scripture. And, I've heard that from more than just one single TTer
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] /*The gospel didn't even have POWER until he was rose from the dead. */ DAVEH: Wow! I'd never heard that before, Perry. Is that something you just made up, or is that commonly believed by many Christians? Dave, I take it you do not believe that statement, thinking I made it up, right? Jesus had prophesied on many occasions that he would be raised up on the third day (Mat 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Loke 9:22; 18:33; 24:6,7; 24:46). Had he not been resurrected on the third day, that would have made him a false prophet, and all that he said and did would have been for naught. (1 Cor 15:13). Why did you think the guards were placed at the tomb? Why do you think the seal was placed on the tomb? (Mat 27:62-66) Everything Jesus did and said was ultimately hinged on the resurrection. So, yes, the resurrection is what gives the gospel it's power. Paul taught the resurrection: Acts 17:18 Power by the resurrection: Romans 1:4 If not risen, preaching and faith in vain: 1 Cor 15:13 The power of His resurrection: Phil 3:10 Begotten unto a lively hope by His resurrection : 1 Pet 1:3 Dave, do you still think I was making it up? Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
/*Is it that you know Paul preached something that is not in the Bible? */ DAVEH: Yes, I do think so. Dave, what did Paul preach that is not in the Bible? I will need Biblical references, as in book, chapter, and verse of course. :-) Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Dave, It is not additional revelation that we object to, per se, and many (if not most) Christians feel that if it is in God's will, additional revelation would be welcome. And to many, additional personal revelation is accepted. Many of us believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is complete. That the faith was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). No more is necessary, and what we have is sufficient for understanding God's will for mankind, and attaining salvation. Should God choose to reveal more scripture it would be welcome...but, to date, no works fulfill that goal. We have been warned in scripture that if anyone preaches a different gospel than the Apostles taught, they are accursed. (2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9) It is the heretical, contradictory, and unbiblical nature of the mormon extra-biblical works, the nefarious background of JS, the lies and deceit of the mormon church that we object to. These prevent real Christians from accepting the mormon works as revelation, or as another testament of Jesus Christ. This all points to one thing...the mormon system is not of God. THAT is what we object to. It is a FALSE religion. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:04:34 -0800 *It is perhaps perplexing to them why you would so adamantly argue that the Scriptures have been closed.* DAVEH:Yes DavidM, that is correct.Such does perplex us. I'm suspect there may be other reasons as well, but it almost seems that the argument for closure is just a knee jerk reaction because of JS's contribution of post Biblical revelations. From our perspective, it appears that Protestants have truly put the blinders on in an effort to avoid hearing anything God might want them to know that is not included in the Bible. Apparently, the only thing that is going to be accepted in a post Biblical sense, will be Jesus.and that only after he shows the nail prints in his hands. If God felt the need to reveal his will through the apostles and prophets of Bible times, it truly does seem strange to us (LDS) that many Christians in this era would reject the idea that God could/would do the same today. To think that God revealed everything we need to know several thousand years ago, and that it has been 100% recorded in what we know as the Bible.seems a bit more than myopic.it might even be insulting to a Lord whose methods are claimed not to change. /*It appears that such dogma comes out of convenience rather than conviction.*/ DAVEH: To me, it seems more a matter of stubbornness, rather than convenience. To allow God to reveal more than he has currently revealed would simply upset the applecart, so to speak. Protestantism has invested heavily in both time and effort building a framework of theology that stands apart from Catholicism, and has adopted a no change policy that would prevent anybody from making waves. IOW.Why would they (Protestants) want to take a chance on finding out that some of their basic premises are wrong! It is much easier to assume correctness of theology, and refuse to hear anything that might be contrary. Hence, they stubbornly reject anything God might reveal outside the Bible. David Miller wrote: As for the Scritpures being closed I have expressed in this forum many times in the past that my perspective is that I do not expect more Scriptures to be forthcoming. Nevertheless, there is no mandate or decree that closes the Canon. It is only an assumption we have that there will not be any more Scriptures written until Christ himself returns. I suspect those just before Christ came the first time thought the same thing. Nevertheless, Christ did come, and soon more Scriptures were written. The only reason such a point is necessary is honesty in approaching the subject. I'm sure to the Mormons, who believe that other Scriptures have been written, you appear unable to think outside your little theological box. *It is perhaps perplexing to them why you would so adamantly argue that the Scriptures have been closed.* /*It appears that such dogma comes out of convenience rather than conviction.*/ -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] How old was Mary?
In an early writing (c. AD 150) called The Proto-Gospel of James, Mary was betrothed at 12, and became pregnant with Jesus at 16. (Lost Scriptures, by Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford University Press, Inc. NY 2003). From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] FW: Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:09:41 -0800 *his 14-year old mother, Mary* DAVEH: Is it commonly believed by many Christians that Mary was only 14 when she gave birth to our Savior? ShieldsFamily wrote: Dec. 25, 2005 JEWISH INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN infant child named Jesus, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding trough by *his 14-year old mother, Mary* of Nazareth. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] How old was Mary?
I have seen only this actual reference...but then again, I haven't read very many early church documents...I am just getting started in that. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] How old was Mary? Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:56:53 -0800 DAVEH: Thank you for your straight forward answer on this, Perry. Is there another contrasting source that would suggest the age of 14, as is implied in Izzy's post. Charles Perry Locke wrote: In an early writing (c. AD 150) called The Proto-Gospel of James, Mary was betrothed at 12, and became pregnant with Jesus at 16. (Lost Scriptures, by Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford University Press, Inc. NY 2003). *his 14-year old mother, Mary* DAVEH: Is it commonly believed by many Christians that Mary was only 14 when she gave birth to our Savior? ShieldsFamily wrote: Dec. 25, 2005 JEWISH INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN infant child named Jesus, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding trough by *his 14-year old mother, Mary* of Nazareth. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] apostles and prophets
on the net to support your above claim. I suspect you are merely saying such to pacify my belief that Protestantism does not readily welcome more revelation from God. If there are *_many_ * Protestants who believe as you suggestedit should be easy for you to provide evidence, Perry. Otherwise, I can only assume you are grinding your ax against Mormonism. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, * It is not additional revelation that we object to, per se, and _many_ (if not most) Christians feel that if it is in God's will, additional revelation would be welcome.* And to many, additional personal revelation is accepted. * Many of us believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is complete.* That the faith was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). No more is necessary, and what we have is sufficient for understanding God's will for mankind, and attaining salvation. *Should God choose to reveal more scripture it would be welcome*...but, to date, no works fulfill that goal. We have been warned in scripture that if anyone preaches a different gospel than the Apostles taught, they are accursed. (2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9) It is the heretical, contradictory, and unbiblical nature of the mormon extra-biblical works, the nefarious background of JS, the lies and deceit of the mormon church that we object to. These prevent real Christians from accepting the mormon works as revelation, or as another testament of Jesus Christ. This all points to one thing...the mormon system is not of God. THAT is what we object to. It is a FALSE religion. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:04:34 -0800 *It is perhaps perplexing to them why you would so adamantly argue that the Scriptures have been closed.* DAVEH:Yes DavidM, that is correct.Such does perplex us. I'm suspect there may be other reasons as well, but it almost seems that the argument for closure is just a knee jerk reaction because of JS's contribution of post Biblical revelations. From our perspective, it appears that Protestants have truly put the blinders on in an effort to avoid hearing anything God might want them to know that is not included in the Bible. Apparently, the only thing that is going to be accepted in a post Biblical sense, will be Jesus.and that only after he shows the nail prints in his hands. If God felt the need to reveal his will through the apostles and prophets of Bible times, it truly does seem strange to us (LDS) that many Christians in this era would reject the idea that God could/would do the same today. To think that God revealed everything we need to know several thousand years ago, and that it has been 100% recorded in what we know as the Bible.seems a bit more than myopic.it might even be insulting to a Lord whose methods are claimed not to change. /*It appears that such dogma comes out of convenience rather than conviction.*/ DAVEH: To me, it seems more a matter of stubbornness, rather than convenience. To allow God to reveal more than he has currently revealed would simply upset the applecart, so to speak. Protestantism has invested heavily in both time and effort building a framework of theology that stands apart from Catholicism, and has adopted a no change policy that would prevent anybody from making waves. IOW.Why would they (Protestants) want to take a chance on finding out that some of their basic premises are wrong! It is much easier to assume correctness of theology, and refuse to hear anything that might be contrary. Hence, they stubbornly reject anything God might reveal outside the Bible. David Miller wrote: As for the Scritpures being closed I have expressed in this forum many times in the past that my perspective is that I do not expect more Scriptures to be forthcoming. Nevertheless, there is no mandate or decree that closes the Canon. It is only an assumption we have that there will not be any more Scriptures written until Christ himself returns. I suspect those just before Christ came the first time thought the same thing. Nevertheless, Christ did come, and soon more Scriptures were written. The only reason such a point is necessary is honesty in approaching the subject. I'm sure to the Mormons, who believe that other Scriptures have been written, you appear unable to think outside your little theological box. *It is perhaps perplexing to them why you would so adamantly argue that the Scriptures have been closed.* /*It appears that such dogma comes out of convenience rather than conviction.*/ -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
So, Terry, you are running a non-prophet business? From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:34:25 -0600 Dave wrote: DAVEH: As I understand DavidM, he believes prophets exist today. Is that the way you believe as well, Bishop? = Profits exist almost everywhere today, except, of course, in my shop. -- 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] Unsubscribe please
G, bad is not a verb, so the infinitive form to bad does not work here. :-) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:08:36 -0700 to bad he didn't pursue that option On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:58:14 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH:Given a chance to become Mormon, I suspect Hitler would feel more comfortable remaining a Protestant. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..Naziism started in the German labor movement--Hitler, with his certain JS-like qualities was first a labor/er's philosopher-politico On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:10:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: yes, its clear, Bro, rightizm iz like Naziism On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:58:40 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Of course Mormanizm is right...that's why I feel so comfortable..amongst friends who are left of right... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..ftr, Mormanizm is right:) On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:55:22 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..whoever intelligently disagrees is left On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:46:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..cultic-apostolic theory rules from the right of the right On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:31:58 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: in context, the essence of current compound/ed cultic-apostolic myth: ..I have been wasting my time throwing pearls before swine here. -- Izzy On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:17:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (someone manufactured this explanation--Izzy cited other mythological reasons) On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:03:57 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Someone breaks the ad hominem rule ..and Izzy is so upset by it that she wants to leave the list, -- 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] apostles and prophets
Dave, I am going to pull a G here and augment my own post... Below is a reference to a page that begins to discuss some of the tests of canonicity. For a fuller discussion I recommend A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix. http://answers.org/theology/add_to_scripture.html Perry From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:34:43 -0800 Dave, Adding to the word is very dangerous business. If one is to believe Jude 3, and Hebrews 1-2, then one would logically assume that scripture is complete. The operative point in our discussion is not that Christians would or would not welcome new revelation...I beleive that most would if it could be demonstrated to be scripture... it is that we believe no new scripture HAS been revealed. But, as Jesus said on the cross...it is finished. His atoning work was complete. No more needs to be done, or said to complete or augment the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is finished. As for Revelation 22, I believe that is an admonition from the writer of Revelation not to change Revelation. However, I also beleive that the principle applies to all of scripture. If indeed Jude 3 and Hebrews 1-2 are true, there would be no gain (biblically...although perhaps personally) from adding to it. There are a series of objective tests that books of the Bible had to meet before they were considered scripture (canonical), and against which new scripture is judged. There were many other books that, although considered by some early christian groups to be scripture, did not meet these criteria. When the mormon extra-biblical works are put to these tests, they fail miserably. That is why we must take heed to take 2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9 to heart. The mormon works are heretical. As for your perception of Christians as myopic, I differ. First of all, we are totally in accord with scripture. We start with the biblical fact that itis finished. We assume that Hebrews 1:1-2 is correct, in that in these last days God spoke to us through his Son. We believe Jude 3 when it says that the faith was delivered once for all to the saints. We are applying objective tests to purported new scripture. We are being good Bereans and searching the scriptures daily to see if what latter day prophets are saying is true. We are testing the spirits of newly revealed scripture, including mormonism, and finding that it fails the tests of canonicity. My guess is that no one in the mormon theocracy has ever honestly applied these tests to scripture and truthfully reported their findings. How honest a scholar are you Dave? Are you the man to do it? Finally, I would not rely on Google for uncovering the truth about anything. Especially if my expectations of it's ability were too high, and my search techniques were lacking. Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:53:47 -0800 * It is not additional revelation that we object to, per se, and many (if not most) Christians feel that if it is in God's will, additional revelation would be welcome.* DAVEH: That isn't the way I've understood most Protestants to believe. If so, then why is there such a reluctance to /add to the Word/, so to speak? When I've addressed the need for current revelation on TT in the past, some TTers have used Rev 22... /[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:/ .as their (faulty) logic in dismissing the option of God revealing more Scripture. And, I've heard that from more than just one single TTer. It is a common argument that is used by many Protestants..and as such, it would suggest that your above comment about *additional revelation would be welcome ...* is not correct. Can you give me some examples of Protestants making such a claim anywhere on the net? That is such a simple and concise statement, one would think it would be easy to google it and turn up a lot of examples of Protestants saying exactly the same thing with exactly the same words. Yet this is what I got when I tried it... _/Your search - additional revelation would be welcome - did not match any documents./_ Which to me would seem very strange if it was a commonly believed desire of Protestants. * Many of us believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is complete.* DAVEH: Which is why I think you are myopic on this, Perry. Are there ANY Protestants who think otherwise? Doesn't believing in that manner suggest that you would not welcome any *additional revelation*_//_, as it would
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Lance, you may be right, but please separate the biblical from the speculation in David's post so the rest of us can see it as you do. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:46:44 -0500 IMO you speak more often with presumption than with authority. Much of that which you've said below is biblical but, some of it is speculation and, I believe that you know which is which. Giftedness and maturity, sadly, do not go hand in hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 12:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets John wrote: I do believe that the apostles had a measure of the Spirit that was in addition that of the gifts of the Spirit The apostolic office is characgterized by special signs and wonders, yes, but this should not be characterized as you have done here. Read 1 Cor. 12 for the proper perspective of apostles to the rest of the body of Christ. John wrote: ... the 7 deacons could not do anything of a miracluous nature before the apostles layed hands on them. Mere speculation on your part, which flies in the face of church tradition and historical writings. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves suggest otherwise when they describe these men already as men of faith, filled with the Holy Ghost. John wrote: Miracles do continue in the church to this day but to the exclusion of faith healings. An effeminate remark which even the female founder of your church has disagreed with. John wrote: There is no more impa rtation of scripture. Speculation and presumption, which might be right, but it has no basis of authority. John wrote: In the Pentecostal tradition, I have seen many who claim to be apostles. Not a single one can raise the dead, heal by casting a shadow, walk through unopened doors and the like. I do not think these men to be evil -- simply confused. Surely there are false apostles today just as there were in New Testament times. Why does Jesus praise the Ephesian church for testing false apostles if John was the last one? Why would there be any testing at this time if John was to be the last apostle? I have known personally two men who have been raised from the dead. I have met apostles who have reported to me experiences of raising the dead, of people being healed as they walked by, and who have had cloths taken to the sick and seen them healed. Just because you have met false apostles does not mean they are all false apostles. I have met false apostles too. When Jesus ascended on high, he gave gifts unto men, namely, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The reason they were given was for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. This was to be until we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Now when someone starts stripping away these gifts, claiming that the apostles are no longer in the body of Christ, or that the modern prophet is now the theologian, or other such fantasies, it only serves to change the body of Christ into something else, more akin to a Christian social club. Why is it that people are so accepting of teachers and pastors, but they do everything they can to discredit and remove from the body of Christ the apostles and prophets? I say that until we are brought into unity of faith and knowledge, unto a perfect man and the fullness of Christ, we need them all. If we have not arrived at such, part of the reason is that we reject the present day ministry of apostles and prophets, so the local church has no solid foundation in Christ. Ephesians 4:8-16 (8) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) (11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (16) From whom the whole body
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
I'd rather you did it, Lance, since you are making the claim, and I would like to see it as YOU see it. Only you can show me that. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:36:30 -0500 I'd rather David did it, Perry. He knows which is which. One wearies of his pompous treatment of his 'subjects' on TT. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 13:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Lance, you may be right, but please separate the biblical from the speculation in David's post so the rest of us can see it as you do. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:46:44 -0500 IMO you speak more often with presumption than with authority. Much of that which you've said below is biblical but, some of it is speculation and, I believe that you know which is which. Giftedness and maturity, sadly, do not go hand in hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 12:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets John wrote: I do believe that the apostles had a measure of the Spirit that was in addition that of the gifts of the Spirit The apostolic office is characgterized by special signs and wonders, yes, but this should not be characterized as you have done here. Read 1 Cor. 12 for the proper perspective of apostles to the rest of the body of Christ. John wrote: ... the 7 deacons could not do anything of a miracluous nature before the apostles layed hands on them. Mere speculation on your part, which flies in the face of church tradition and historical writings. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves suggest otherwise when they describe these men already as men of faith, filled with the Holy Ghost. John wrote: Miracles do continue in the church to this day but to the exclusion of faith healings. An effeminate remark which even the female founder of your church has disagreed with. John wrote: There is no more impa rtation of scripture. Speculation and presumption, which might be right, but it has no basis of authority. John wrote: In the Pentecostal tradition, I have seen many who claim to be apostles. Not a single one can raise the dead, heal by casting a shadow, walk through unopened doors and the like. I do not think these men to be evil -- simply confused. Surely there are false apostles today just as there were in New Testament times. Why does Jesus praise the Ephesian church for testing false apostles if John was the last one? Why would there be any testing at this time if John was to be the last apostle? I have known personally two men who have been raised from the dead. I have met apostles who have reported to me experiences of raising the dead, of people being healed as they walked by, and who have had cloths taken to the sick and seen them healed. Just because you have met false apostles does not mean they are all false apostles. I have met false apostles too. When Jesus ascended on high, he gave gifts unto men, namely, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The reason they were given was for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. This was to be until we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Now when someone starts stripping away these gifts, claiming that the apostles are no longer in the body of Christ, or that the modern prophet is now the theologian, or other such fantasies, it only serves to change the body of Christ into something else, more akin to a Christian social club. Why is it that people are so accepting of teachers and pastors, but they do everything they can to discredit and remove from the body of Christ the apostles and prophets? I say that until we are brought into unity of faith and knowledge, unto a perfect man and the fullness of Christ, we need them all. If we have not arrived at such, part of the reason is that we reject the present day ministry of apostles and prophets, so the local church has no solid foundation in Christ. Ephesians 4:8-16 (8) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) (11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
All I am asking, Lance, is for you to clarify what you consider to be speculation in David's post. You often sit back and direct others to produce stuff, while producing very little substance yourself, so I suspected you would not point out David's speculation. Perhaps you just do not want to put forth the effort...or perhaps you are blowing smoke. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:33:40 -0500 You may 'rather' all you want to, Perry. Remember, I watched the 'extended version' of the conversation between yourself and the 'annointed one' on Scripture. He simply cannot acknowledge wrongheadedness. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 14:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets I'd rather you did it, Lance, since you are making the claim, and I would like to see it as YOU see it. Only you can show me that. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:36:30 -0500 I'd rather David did it, Perry. He knows which is which. One wearies of his pompous treatment of his 'subjects' on TT. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 13:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Lance, you may be right, but please separate the biblical from the speculation in David's post so the rest of us can see it as you do. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:46:44 -0500 IMO you speak more often with presumption than with authority. Much of that which you've said below is biblical but, some of it is speculation and, I believe that you know which is which. Giftedness and maturity, sadly, do not go hand in hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 12:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets John wrote: I do believe that the apostles had a measure of the Spirit that was in addition that of the gifts of the Spirit The apostolic office is characgterized by special signs and wonders, yes, but this should not be characterized as you have done here. Read 1 Cor. 12 for the proper perspective of apostles to the rest of the body of Christ. John wrote: ... the 7 deacons could not do anything of a miracluous nature before the apostles layed hands on them. Mere speculation on your part, which flies in the face of church tradition and historical writings. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves suggest otherwise when they describe these men already as men of faith, filled with the Holy Ghost. John wrote: Miracles do continue in the church to this day but to the exclusion of faith healings. An effeminate remark which even the female founder of your church has disagreed with. John wrote: There is no more impa rtation of scripture. Speculation and presumption, which might be right, but it has no basis of authority. John wrote: In the Pentecostal tradition, I have seen many who claim to be apostles. Not a single one can raise the dead, heal by casting a shadow, walk through unopened doors and the like. I do not think these men to be evil -- simply confused. Surely there are false apostles today just as there were in New Testament times. Why does Jesus praise the Ephesian church for testing false apostles if John was the last one? Why would there be any testing at this time if John was to be the last apostle? I have known personally two men who have been raised from the dead. I have met apostles who have reported to me experiences of raising the dead, of people being healed as they walked by, and who have had cloths taken to the sick and seen them healed. Just because you have met false apostles does not mean they are all false apostles. I have met false apostles too. When Jesus ascended on high, he gave gifts unto men, namely, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The reason they were given was for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. This was to be until we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Now when someone starts stripping away these gifts, claiming that the apostles are no longer in the body of Christ, or that the modern prophet is now the theologian, or other such fantasies, it only serves to change the body of Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Lance, I have asked you to back up your claims...something you evidently cannot do. Your inability to do so makes your claims baseless. I am a nuisance only in so much as I am asking you to do something you obviously cannot do. I am not at opposition to you...I want to see what you believe is conjecture in David's post. It has nothing to do with being Mormon, so why bring that up? It has nothing to do with what you think of David's character, so why bring that up? It does not even matter how I find David to be, so why bring that up? All red herrings. It is about asking you to back up a claim, and you being unable to do so. That is all. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:34:11 -0500 Why not go with 'blowin' smoke' if it makes you feel better, I'm not even a Mormon, Perry. Why be such a nuisance? Move on! David is, IMO, on some occasions, a pompous ass. Should you find him to be otherwise then, good for you! - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 15:02 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets All I am asking, Lance, is for you to clarify what you consider to be speculation in David's post. You often sit back and direct others to produce stuff, while producing very little substance yourself, so I suspected you would not point out David's speculation. Perhaps you just do not want to put forth the effort...or perhaps you are blowing smoke. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:33:40 -0500 You may 'rather' all you want to, Perry. Remember, I watched the 'extended version' of the conversation between yourself and the 'annointed one' on Scripture. He simply cannot acknowledge wrongheadedness. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 14:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets I'd rather you did it, Lance, since you are making the claim, and I would like to see it as YOU see it. Only you can show me that. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:36:30 -0500 I'd rather David did it, Perry. He knows which is which. One wearies of his pompous treatment of his 'subjects' on TT. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 13:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Lance, you may be right, but please separate the biblical from the speculation in David's post so the rest of us can see it as you do. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:46:44 -0500 IMO you speak more often with presumption than with authority. Much of that which you've said below is biblical but, some of it is speculation and, I believe that you know which is which. Giftedness and maturity, sadly, do not go hand in hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 30, 2005 12:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets John wrote: I do believe that the apostles had a measure of the Spirit that was in addition that of the gifts of the Spirit The apostolic office is characgterized by special signs and wonders, yes, but this should not be characterized as you have done here. Read 1 Cor. 12 for the proper perspective of apostles to the rest of the body of Christ. John wrote: ... the 7 deacons could not do anything of a miracluous nature before the apostles layed hands on them. Mere speculation on your part, which flies in the face of church tradition and historical writings. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves suggest otherwise when they describe these men already as men of faith, filled with the Holy Ghost. John wrote: Miracles do continue in the church to this day but to the exclusion of faith healings. An effeminate remark which even the female founder of your church has disagreed with. John wrote: There is no more impa rtation of scripture. Speculation and presumption, which might be right, but it has no basis of authority. John wrote: In the Pentecostal tradition, I have seen many who claim to be apostles. Not a single one can raise the dead, heal by casting a shadow, walk through unopened doors and the like. I do not think these men to be evil -- simply confused. Surely there are false apostles today just
[TruthTalk] How to leave TT (was: Unsubscribe please)
Terry, Maybe you are speaking from experience, but I believe that cold turkey is the way to go. You have to cut and run and not look back. Sure, there will be withdrawals. The habit of sitting down to check your email and immediately looking for TT posts will be difficult to break. But with a proper support group, and some worthy diversions, it can be done. Another approach is to buy the TT-SENTRY! software package. For a mere $29.95 (and $5.99 per month, charged to your credit card) TT-SENTRY! will scan all incoming and outgoing email for the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and immediately destroy them, automatically unsubscribe the sender from TT, then log the user off the machine, and restrict this user from logging back on for 24 hours. If this automatic procedure is invoked more than 5 times, then on the sixth occurrence the hard disk is wiped clean. However, if the above two measures do not work and breaking the TT habit proves to be an overwhelming task, a loved one can call 1-800-LEAVE-TT, a critical intervention hotline, and for $599.99 the moderator will personally come to your house with a sledge hammer and smash every computer in your home, including cell phones and PDAs capable of email access. This also includes a 1-year membership in TT Anonymous...a 12-step support group for recovering TT subscribers. If none of these measures work, the next step is electroshock therapy. However, due to the delicate nature of this procedure, TT provides only a referral service to EST practitioners. Some former subscribers have used self-administered electroshock therapy with limited success. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unsubscribe please Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:45:53 -0600 ShieldsFamily wrote: You cannot just stop cold turkey. If you don't taper off gradually, you will have a relapse. Terry Having been moving for the last couple of days, I just got a chance to sit down for a rest and browse through TT. I am dismayed as what I see. I wonder why I have been wasting my time throwing pearls before swine here. The answer, of course, is that I dearly enjoy reading and sharing posts with the kindhearted Believers on TT. But the truth is, in real life I would never associate with the toxic people I find here. I don't need hateful, nasty people insulting me or my friends. I have so many delightful friends to spend the precious moments of my life with, and so very much to accomplish. Life is increasingly short, and I am convicted about spending it wisely. So dear Lance, jd, and Gary, enjoy insulting me to your heart's desire while I'm gone. I'm giving up TT for New Year's. I hope the rest of you will email me often. Love and Blessings and a closer walk with Jesus to every one of you, Izzy -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- 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] Merry Christmas!
Terry, Well said. The wages of sin is death, and since Jesus paid the price for our sins, it is his death that paid that price...not the stress He felt in Gethsemene, as great as it was. If that were so, the billions of animals that have been sacrificed by the Jews in in ages past for thier sins would not have been killed...the people could have just transferred their sin to them and then let them go...but there is no substitutionary atonement in that. To be substitutionary the sacrificial lamb MUST suffer the penalty that is due the sinner. Death. On the cross our Lord uttered the word tetelestai. It is finished (http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=30qa_id=28). At that moment our debt was paid. He did not say that in the garden, because he did not pay the debt in the garden. The cross is a symbol of His death, yes, but it was His death on that cross that paid the price we could never pay. The cross is a symbol of the good news of our forgiven sins. The cross IS used in the Bible as a symbol by Jesus and the apostles...extensively. So, the question remains, who would make up such a lie that He atoned for our sins in the Garden? Maybe the same one that lied to Eve in the Garden? Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Merry Christmas! Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:33:36 -0600 I appreciate your comments, Dave. This helps me to better understand what you have either been taught or come to believe. If I may, I would like to take the liberty of pointing out some differences in our views. I see Jesus sweating out the coming event in the garden much as I sweat out a trip to the dentist, or the way I felt waiting to have my chest cut open and my heart stopped while strangers took a vein from my leg and repaired the hoses feeding my heart. It is the waiting for something you know is going to hurt while knowing it cannot be avoided. It is apprehension of what is to come. There is no doubt that this is a weak comparison. I would rather be killed than become guilty of being a homosexual or a child molester, but Jesus became guilty of that and much more when He took the sins of every human on Himself. The apprehension of a perfectly innocent person becoming absolutely guilty of every sin possible would be something you or I cannot possibly comprehend. He suffered mentally there, possibly as much as He suffered physically later, but that was not what paid the price for our sin. He may have shed some bloody sweat there, but the next stage, the flogging, would have been much bloodier. A whip was used which had multiple thongs, and to the end of each thong was fastened a bit of stone or iron that hit the skin like a bullet, tearing out pieces of flesh. Many criminals did not survive the flogging and died before they could be nailed to the cross. Death by crucifixion was not due to loss of blood, although that certainly weakened the victim. When your arms are outstretched and the weight of your body is supported only by your arms, your rib cage cannot move, and so you cannot breath. In order to breath, you must push yourself up with your feet and take the load off your arms. This is hard to do when any pressure on your feet causes pain because of the spike that nailed them to the cross. So the victim alternates, first breathing, then suffocating, first supporting himself with his legs, then hanging from his arms, no relief, even for a moment. The two thieves were finally suffocated when the soldiers took a mallet and crushed their legs, ending their ability to breath. With Jesus it was different. Prophecy said that not a bone would be broken and His legs were never hit with the mallet. At the moment He cried out, *My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me, *He paid the price for our sins. Up until that time, the Father had been with Him, but when Christ took on the sins of the world, God could not bear to look on sin, and at that point, Jesus was guilty of every evil thing I have ever done. When He had done this, He gave up the ghost. No soldier took His life. He laid it down, for you and for me. When the soldier plunged the spear into His side, it would have lacerated the liver, and any blood left in His body would have been almost completely drained from it. Christ paid the ultimate price for my sins on that cross. His lifeless body was taken down from it. Just a final thought: The Bible I use says that every saved person is part of a royal priesthood. Jesus our Lord is high priests, and every follower of His is one of His priests. That tells me that the first black priest was the Etheopean eunuch that Phillip Baptized long before 1978. I hope you can see this. Terry *the Mormon doctrine (official church doctrine) Christ's atonement for the sins of the world.* DAVEH: As I understand it, the atonement took place in the
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
Gary, your statement seems to imply that you believe that killing in combat is murder. Is that you belief? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:03:27 -0700 real women marry murderers?? On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away? -- Original message -- From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Its great to know there are some real men in Canada, in spite of the wimps that run the P.C. government. (In fact, my husband was born on a US AF base in Newfoundland. J ) iz Sniping with the .50 BMG in Afghanistan New long-distance record set! (The following is from the Canadian newspaper National Post. The shooters were using .50 BMG rifles that had Lilja barrels on them outfitted with Nightforce 5.5-22x NXS scopes.) OTTAWA BLOCKS U.S. EFFORT TO HONOUR OUR SNIPERS: Canadian snipers pose with their 50-calibre rifle at base camp in Kandahar. Five of the men, whose names the military withheld for security reasons, were nominated for Bronze Stars by the U.S. for their prowess in fighting near Gardez. The sixth joined the unit later in the war. Wait due to 'Canadian protocol' A kill from 2,430 metres By Michael Smith and Chris Wattie National Post The United States wants to give two teams of Canadian snipers the Bronze Star, a decoration for bravery, for their work in rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in eastern Afghanistan, but Canadian defence officials put the medals on hold, the National Post has learned. The five snipers spent 19 days fighting alongside the scout platoon of the United States Army's 187th Rakkasan brigade last month, clearing out diehard fighters from the mountains near Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The Americans were so impressed by the Canadian snipers that they recommended them for medals after the battle. Sources told the Post that U.S. General Warren Edwards had already signed the recommendation for five Bronze Stars for the sniper teams, drawn from 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, last month. Gen. Edwards, deputy commanding general of coalition land forces in Afghanistan, had recommended three Canadians for a Bronze Star and two for a Bronze Star with distinction. The night before the troops were to be awarded the medals, about three weeks ago, Canadian military officials in Ottawa put the decorations on hold, according to a U.S. Army source in Afghanistan. The Canadian military told their U.S. counterparts to wait before awarding the medals for reasons of Canadian protocol. Spokesmen for the Department of National Defence would not comment on the award last night, but a source within the department said the medals are on hold while the military decides whether or not to award the men a similar Canadian decoration. However, Dr. David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the real reason for the delay was likely official squeamishness. Canadians don't kill -- they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem, he said. I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact ... that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people. Many of the U.S. scouts who worked directly with the Canadian snipers were incensed that the Canadians did not get the Bronze Star, the medal for bravery the U.S. military usually gives foreign soldiers serving alongside its troops. The snipers themselves, all of whom spoke on condition their names not be printed, have said they would prefer to receive a medal from their peers in the field rather than from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. Dr. Bercuson said there should be no objection to Canadians receiving a U.S. decoration: As recently as the Gulf War, two Canadian CF-18 pilots were given the Bronze Star. He said the medals would be a badly needed boost to the morale of the almost 900 Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, especially after four of their comrades were killed and eight others wounded in last week's friendly fire incident. Absolutely they should get it, Dr. Bercuson said. It would be good for the morale of the guys and good for the morale of the whole unit, and they need a morale boost right now. Canadian snipers were reportedly outstanding in the fighting around the mountainous al-Qaeda bastion east of Gardez, code-named Operation Anaconda. The battle pitted the two Canadian sniper teams against an enemy that showered the assaulting coalition troops with mortars and machine-gun fire as soon as they jumped from their helicopters. One member of the team, a corporal from Newfoundland, said on his first night in combat he and his partner got an al-Qaeda machine gun in their sights as it was hailing bullets down on U.S. troops below. Crawling
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
Lance, I don't have a husband...I have a wife, and I do not have a relative that is a pilot. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:35:58 -0500 Has your husband killed anyone? How 'bout your relative, the pilot? Sounds like merit badge of manhood for ya. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2005 13:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Gary, your statement seems to imply that you believe that killing in combat is murder. Is that you belief? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:03:27 -0700 real women marry murderers?? On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away? -- Original message -- From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's great to know there are some real men in Canada, in spite of the wimps that run the P.C. government. (In fact, my husband was born on a US AF base in Newfoundland. J ) iz Sniping with the .50 BMG in Afghanistan New long-distance record set! (The following is from the Canadian newspaper National Post. The shooters were using .50 BMG rifles that had Lilja barrels on them outfitted with Nightforce 5.5-22x NXS scopes.) OTTAWA BLOCKS U.S. EFFORT TO HONOUR OUR SNIPERS: Canadian snipers pose with their 50-calibre rifle at base camp in Kandahar. Five of the men, whose names the military withheld for security reasons, were nominated for Bronze Stars by the U.S. for their prowess in fighting near Gardez. The sixth joined the unit later in the war. Wait due to 'Canadian protocol' A kill from 2,430 metres By Michael Smith and Chris Wattie National Post The United States wants to give two teams of Canadian snipers the Bronze Star, a decoration for bravery, for their work in rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in eastern Afghanistan, but Canadian defence officials put the medals on hold, the National Post has learned. The five snipers spent 19 days fighting alongside the scout platoon of the United States Army's 187th Rakkasan brigade last month, clearing out diehard fighters from the mountains near Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The Americans were so impressed by the Canadian snipers that they recommended them for medals after the battle. Sources told the Post that U.S. General Warren Edwards had already signed the recommendation for five Bronze Stars for the sniper teams, drawn from 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, last month. Gen. Edwards, deputy commanding general of coalition land forces in Afghanistan, had recommended three Canadians for a Bronze Star and two for a Bronze Star with distinction. The night before the troops were to be awarded the medals, about three weeks ago, Canadian military officials in Ottawa put the decorations on hold, according to a U.S. Army source in Afghanistan. The Canadian military told their U.S. counterparts to wait before awarding the medals for reasons of Canadian protocol. Spokesmen for the Department of National Defence would not comment on the award last night, but a source within the department said the medals are on hold while the military decides whether or not to award the men a similar Canadian decoration. However, Dr. David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the real reason for the delay was likely official squeamishness. Canadians don't kill -- they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem, he said. I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact ... that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people. Many of the U.S. scouts who worked directly with the Canadian snipers were incensed that the Canadians did not get the Bronze Star, the medal for bravery the U.S. military usually gives foreign soldiers serving alongside its troops. The snipers themselves, all of whom spoke on condition their names not be printed, have said they would prefer to receive a medal from their peers in the field rather than from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. Dr. Bercuson said there should be no objection to Canadians receiving a U.S. decoration: As recently as the Gulf War, two Canadian CF-18 pilots were given the Bronze Star. He said the medals would be a badly needed boost to the morale of the almost 900 Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, especially after four of their comrades were killed and eight others wounded in last week's friendly fire incident. Absolutely they should get it, Dr. Bercuson said. It would be good for the morale of the guys and good for the morale of the whole unit
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
I knew it was not intended for me :-) But, I had responded to Gary's response to Izzy. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:57:09 -0500 That, Charles, was for the one you responded to namely, Iz. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2005 13:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Lance, I don't have a husband...I have a wife, and I do not have a relative that is a pilot. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:35:58 -0500 Has your husband killed anyone? How 'bout your relative, the pilot? Sounds like merit badge of manhood for ya. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 26, 2005 13:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Gary, your statement seems to imply that you believe that killing in combat is murder. Is that you belief? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:03:27 -0700 real women marry murderers?? On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away? -- Original message -- From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's great to know there are some real men in Canada, in spite of the wimps that run the P.C. government. (In fact, my husband was born on a US AF base in Newfoundland. J ) iz Sniping with the .50 BMG in Afghanistan New long-distance record set! (The following is from the Canadian newspaper National Post. The shooters were using .50 BMG rifles that had Lilja barrels on them outfitted with Nightforce 5.5-22x NXS scopes.) OTTAWA BLOCKS U.S. EFFORT TO HONOUR OUR SNIPERS: Canadian snipers pose with their 50-calibre rifle at base camp in Kandahar. Five of the men, whose names the military withheld for security reasons, were nominated for Bronze Stars by the U.S. for their prowess in fighting near Gardez. The sixth joined the unit later in the war. Wait due to 'Canadian protocol' A kill from 2,430 metres By Michael Smith and Chris Wattie National Post The United States wants to give two teams of Canadian snipers the Bronze Star, a decoration for bravery, for their work in rooting out Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in eastern Afghanistan, but Canadian defence officials put the medals on hold, the National Post has learned. The five snipers spent 19 days fighting alongside the scout platoon of the United States Army's 187th Rakkasan brigade last month, clearing out diehard fighters from the mountains near Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The Americans were so impressed by the Canadian snipers that they recommended them for medals after the battle. Sources told the Post that U.S. General Warren Edwards had already signed the recommendation for five Bronze Stars for the sniper teams, drawn from 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, last month. Gen. Edwards, deputy commanding general of coalition land forces in Afghanistan, had recommended three Canadians for a Bronze Star and two for a Bronze Star with distinction. The night before the troops were to be awarded the medals, about three weeks ago, Canadian military officials in Ottawa put the decorations on hold, according to a U.S. Army source in Afghanistan. The Canadian military told their U.S. counterparts to wait before awarding the medals for reasons of Canadian protocol. Spokesmen for the Department of National Defence would not comment on the award last night, but a source within the department said the medals are on hold while the military decides whether or not to award the men a similar Canadian decoration. However, Dr. David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the real reason for the delay was likely official squeamishness. Canadians don't kill -- they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem, he said. I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact ... that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people. Many of the U.S. scouts who worked directly with the Canadian snipers were incensed that the Canadians did not get the Bronze Star, the medal for bravery the U.S. military usually gives foreign soldiers serving alongside its troops. The snipers themselves, all of whom spoke on condition their names not be printed, have said they would prefer to receive a medal from their peers in the field rather than from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. Dr
Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
So, your answer is a definite perhaps. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:54:53 -0700 perhaps..partic while 'combat' contains the operative myth, below; e.g., when rival gangs engage in combative streetlevel sniping, the police investigate the/ir 'murder(er)s'; however, ppl like Izzy, contrary to their own law/s, require society to invest its moral capital in manufacturing (their) 'murder' an expedient exemption for their particular priorities purpose/s On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:12:08 -0800 Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary, your statement seems to imply that you believe that killing in combat is murder. Is that you belief? || -- 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] Mormonism Freemasonry
Blaine, I beg to differ. I have read two books, side by side, one of the Mormon temple endowment, and one of Freemasonry, and the similarities are unmistakable, from the the clothing and anointing to the secret grips, tokens, and penalties. Add to this the fact that JS was himself a mason of at least the 32nd degree, and it is quite obvious that JS adopted and adapted the Freemason ceremonies for his own use in the LDS temple endowments. Lets add to this some new information...the Freemasons, in their ceremonies, pay homage to several Egyptian gods. Now, you have told us that JS writes in the PoGP that one of hte names of god is Amun, or Ammon, an Egyptian god. See the siilarity. I am anxious to research if JS got that name fromt he pages fromt eh book of the dead he purchased and pretended to translate as the Book of Abraham, or if he learned it in his Masonic lodge. A little research shows that [Albert] Pike [freemason and author] notes that the god Jupiter Ammon's picture was painted with the sign of the Ram or Lamb (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 407). He mentions that Jupiter Ammon is the same as Osiris, Adoni, Adonis, Atys, and the other Sun Gods . . . (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonry.htm) Let's recall that JS carried a Jupiter talisman, found on him after his death, and that you said Ammon [ the same as Osiris, et al] is a name for the mormon god, according to the PoGP. Now we see a very STRONG tie between Ftremasonry and Mormonism...and a spiritual tie at that! Also, you resonded to the post below, regarding the similarities of the two, There is no provable relationship. I find it interesting that you would choose this wording. This wording implies that you are not sure, and that if there is, you do not think it can be proven. That is a far cry from believing that there is no relationship! And I recall, also, that you are an amateur astrologer and have even cast the mormon jesus' horoscope (according to a previous post of yours). You're dabbling in occult sciences, Blaine, and thus are a true follower of JS. Like father, like son. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism Freemasonry Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:01:19 EST In a message dated 12/26/2005 5:14:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..are one and the same 'spirit'. The 'degrees' in Mormonism correspond to the 'degrees' in freemasonry. DANGEROUS STUFF! There is no provable relationship. If there was, you would do more than make a blanket statement. Blainerb -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Blaine demonstrates mormon god not God of Bible, but merely Egyptian god.
Blaine wrote: Ahman A name for God, means, Man of Holiness (see Egyptian name of God, Ammon, or Amon, or Amen--similar?) Blaine, you have just demonstrated that the god of mormonism is NOT the God of the bible: http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/egyptian-mythology.php?deity=AMUN http://www.touregypt.net/amen.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/1egypt/index.htm (then clickon Amon in left column) http://www.egyptianmyths.net/amon.htm Merry Christmas, Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
David, From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perry, thanks for taking the time. I now understand better how you are reading it, and your reason for why the switch from ye to they and them is reasonable, although I would have expected something more along the lines of those of you for clarity's sake. Perhaps They vs Those of you was the translator's choice. Perhaps it is rendered exactly the way the greek says it. You asked which of us have been led of the Spirit to our reading. You are the only one who has made a claim of revelation concerning this passage. I'm simply reading it at face value. I will take up what you have shared in prayer and consider it further. At this moment, I still have reservations about it. Does God really give promises to some in the church that he does not give to others? Your rendering leads to the idea that there exists a clergy in the body of Christ which is special to God with special promises. I see the clergy and laity distinction as something that crept into the church later, just as the pope concept did, and the single pastor / ceo of the congregation concept did. It seems to me that I will have to re-examine all my views concerning this if your perspective is right here. I am more than willing to do this. I think He does give promises to some that he does not give to others. In the days of the early church, I think the those particular signs were given to the apostles to validate their message, and to protect them in carrying out their mission to spread the gospel. Perhaps all of those same signs and protection are not needed by all. Today, not all speak in tongues, not all heal, not all teach. Yet I doubt if the inability to perform any of those signs is an indication of one's position in Christ. You referenced Luke 16:18 below. Just to make sure I am not missing something you said, did you mean Mark 16:18, kind of like I meant Mark when I typed John? I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Yes, I meant Mark. Also, to be clear about this, is it your sincere testimony that the Holy Spirit came upon you and gave you this viewpoint? Did you experience some kind of vision or dream that brought this perspective? This is an important witness if you are taking this position. I thought you were perhaps saying this flippantly, as if revelation by the Spirit no longer happens today. Maybe you can tell me more about how this line of thinking came to you. David, this is going to be a rather drawn out explanation, including some of my history, that I think most are not interested in, and probably a bit more than you are asking for. Let me draw this up and send it to you privately. Perry Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides Comments below: From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perry wrote: I beleive the verse about preaching to all creatures to be parenthetical to the rest of the passage, telling the apostles their commission, but not changing the subject of his address, namely those whom he had just upbraided for thier unbelief. The verses leading up to and including verse 14 are a narrative spoken by the author, John. John is the one who refers to the eleven as they andthem. This is not Jesus addressing anyone. Either you haved erred, or you need to explain this to me...I thought the author was Mark. Verse 15 starts with, And HE said unto them... I assume the antecedent of He is Jesus. So after this phrase in verse 15, it is Jesus speaking, up to but not including verse 19 where it says, THEN AFTER THE LORD HAD SPOKEN. Verse 19 resumes the narrative by John, and so the antecedent of they and them switches back to the original, which would be the eleven. So, when he says YE in verse 15, he is referring to the eleven, and therefore they or them are referring to others to whom they preach. When Jesus is speaking, he would use the word YE again if he meant to refer to the eleven. Why start out talking to them saying Go YE but then switch to saying THEY or THEM? Who speaks in this way, addressing a group and instead of saying YOU says THEY or THEM? Or is it possible that you assume that Jesus is not the one speaking in verses 16-18? David, let me repeat the verses here with the antecedents embedded...perhaps that will better show you what the Holy Spirit revealed to me: (14) Afterward he [Jesus] appeared unto the eleven as they [the eleven] sat at meat, and upbraided them [the eleven] with their [the eleven] unbelief and hardness of heart, because they [the eleven] believed not them [the Marys] which had seen him [Jesus] after he [Jesus] was risen. (15) And he [Jesus] said unto them [the eleven], Go ye [the eleven] into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [It is important at this point
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
Dave, thanks for reminding me. I intended to reply to those questions, but overlooked them in the post. I have no reason to believe that the 11 had been baptised prior to Jesus' appearance to them. I have not read in scripture that any of them were. Of course, there are different types of baptism, and they may have been baptised for the remission of sins, but perhaps not baptised in Jesus' name. You mentioned the washing of Peter's feet...I will read that again and see if I can see any allusion to baptism there...in previous readings I did not. I tend to try not to assign symbolism to very many things, unless it explained as such in scrupture. I feel it is dangerous to assign symbolism where none exists, and that doing so leads to and is a major source of error, especially in understanding the end times. I feel that if there is symbolism, it will either be explained as such (Luke 8:11-15), or will be used in a simile (Matt 13:33), or will be so obvious that it cannot be explained any other way (Matt 24:32,33). As for thier unbelief, I believe that after Jesus' cricifixion and burial they were despondent, and their faith was probaby at a low. I am sure they thought that it was not supposed to go this way (having not fully understood what was meant by Jesus' having to be raised up on the third day). Not believing that the Marys saw Jesus after his butial was tantamount at that point to not believing the gospel (which was not complete, BTW, until he was raised!). His resurrection IS the power of the gospel. Without beleiving that he was raised from the dead, the gosepl is just vain words. All through Acts it is the RESURRECTION is preached, not the crucifixion. The resurrection IS the GOOD NEWS! Praise God for that! So, until they saw the resurrected Jesus, I think they did not fully understand. Thomas is one example of this...he felt free enough to openly state his doubt. In fact, they all had disbelief...that is why he upbraided them when he appeared to them. I think his resurrection is what convinced the apostles of the truth of the gospel...until Jesus was raised, his crucifixion meant to them that their leader and their hopes were forever lost. That is why they did not believe the Marys when they told them they had seen Jesus...had they had fully understood and believed the gospel, they would have believed the Marys. Now, that being said, it makes sense that he would upbraid them for their unbeleif...it also makes sense that he warns them that any of them that do not believe (after now having seen that he was raised) would be damned! NOW they were to beleive and be baptised...into Christ. I hope this is clear...I am not a theologian and often cannot make my thoughts clear in writing. Perry From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:37:08 -0500 Perry, I forgot to ask you again to address the situation of baptism in regards to the eleven. Do you think they needed to be baptized again / first time / what? Explain your perception of when they were baptized in the context of, he who believes and is baptized... Also, isn't the context of believe here concerning believing the gospel? They had already believed the gospel that Jesus preached, and they themselves preached had already been preaching it to those specific cities where the Lord had sent them. What they had trouble believing was his bodily resurrection, and their commission to preach was being extended to the whole world and every creature. How do you see it? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perry wrote: I have no reason to believe that the 11 had been baptised prior to Jesus' appearance to them. John 3:25-26 (25) Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. (26) And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John 4:1-2 (1) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (2) (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) It makes sense that if his disciples (assuming the apostles were counted in his disciples) were baptizing, that they themselves had been baptized. But is there not several different baptisms identified in the scripture? What type of baptism do you think his disciples were performing? John was performing baptism for the remittance of sins. Do you think this is the baptism Jesus' disciples were performing? Do you think it possible that when Jesus appeared to the 11, he was referring to a different baptism? Perhaps not ALL of the 11 were baptised at that point. What do you think? John 13:8-10 (8) Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. (9) Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. (10) Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. Should we not consider the eleven apostles already saved? I am not confident there is symbolism to baptism in the above verses. Does the greek yield any more information to that effect? John 14:16-17 (16) And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because IT SEETH HIM NOT, neither knoweth him: BUT YE KNOW HIM; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. It seems to me that they believed, were baptized, and thereby were delivered from this world system and had come to know the Holy Ghost, although they had not yet been baptized in the Holy Ghost. Yes, it does imply that. 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] Who decides
Well, David, in the short of it, if I have to beleive the Holy Spirit, or you, I choose the Holy Spirit. This whole address is to the eleven...the signs are to the eleven, not every creature. This is confirmed in v20: And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. They here also refers to the eleven, the same they who went forth. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:34:10 -0500 Perry, I appreciate you bringing up a specific consideration about this passage. I'm rather surprised by your line of reasoning. The antecedent of HE is all creatures, not exclusively the apostles. Let's examine a more full context for this passage. Mark 16:14-20 (14) Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. In verse 14, we can see readily that Jesus was speaking to the eleven apostles, but in verse 16 Jesus was speaking about those to whom they would be preaching. Verse 15 says, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE. HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED... and then it goes on to explain what signs would follow them that believe. My objections to your suggestion are several: 1. It takes a great amount of unnecessary twisting of the reading to try and make the He of vs. 16 refer to the eleven rather than to every creature to whom they preached. Your comment 1. It takes a great amount of unnecessary twisting of the reading to try and make the He of vs. 16 refer to the eleven. I find to be a specious argument with no basis. It is an opinion, which I appreciate, but do not accept. 2. One would then have to conclude that the promise of salvation through believing and baptism applies only to the eleven, and that the concept of damnation through not believing applied only to the eleven also. Do you think any of the eleven were damned for not believing? One does not have to believe that these concepts apply only to the eleven. While these passages DO confirm this for the eleven, it does not exclude ANYONE. Scripture elsewhere may give further details about others. None of the 11 were damned (as far as I know) because they all believed...however, Judas did not believe, and, yes, he was damned. 3. The only way I could possibly view the signs as referring to the eleven is if Jesus said, And these signs shall follow them that PREACH. He did not say that. The text says that these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE. Furthermore, other passages of Scripture show that this is what happened, that signs followed others besides the eleven apostles (men like Stephen, Philip, Ananias, and also other apostles like Paul and Barnabas, and also church elders such as those mentioned in James 5:14-15), and that such signs are indicated as being expressed throughout the church in passages like 1 Cor. 12, Gal. 3:5, etc. Sorry jesus did not say it the way you can understand it. Okay, we confirm that other passages support these things applying to others. However, this does NOT mean that the Mark 16 v16-20 have to apply to others. (Besides, I have read some accounts of scripture that say v9-20 are not in the earliest manuscripts!) I'll wait for your response before saying anything more at this time. Dave, this exchange calls out an important point that is currently being discussed here on TT. I am sure you believe that the holy Spirit gave you your interpretation. And, I am sure the Holy Spirit gave me mine. Now, how do we go about resolving this? Who is right? Would the Holy Spirit give both you and I different and contradicting understanding? How do you go about decideding that what the Holy Spirit told you is the right understanding? Perry Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides David, Regarding your item 2, we
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
David, Comments embedded below. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perry, amen about always believing the Holy Spirit over me, but the Holy Spirit will not contradict himself or his Word. Therefore, if contradictions exist, then you have not heard from the Holy Spirit, agreed? First, I also embedded further commentary in the test of your previous message which you may have overlooked, so please take the time to read it all. (I should have indicated that there was more to follow). Second, I agree about the Holy Spirit not being contradictory, but how do we know that it is I that have not heard from the Holy spirit, and not YOU that has not heard from the Holy Spirit? See more below: Let's look at the passage again. Mark 16:14-20 (14) Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Jesus is speaking to the eleven. We agree on this. Verses 16-18 use pronouns such as he, they, and them. All of these pronouns in these verses refer to the creatures to whom they preach. We know this because the context of his message to the eleven is preaching the gospel to every creature. He is giving them the reason why they should be preaching, because of those to whom they preach, some will believe and be baptized and thereby be saved, while others would not believe and would be damned. Jesus then goes on to teach that sings would follow them that believe. Who are them that believe? Those who believe the gospel being preached by the eleven. How can you view this any other way? What motivates you to interpret the passage another way? Think about that. Sounds to me like you are making a lot of assumtions that the text does not contain. What if the passage had said, these signs shall follow them that believe: they shall receive joy. Would you be trying to argue that the joy of salvation applied exclusively to the eleven if that were the case? No. The above is a fallacious argument. If I say, David you are great, it does not mean that other people are not great...it just means that at that monment I am telling you that you are great...later I may tell some others that they are great, too. Verse 19 leaves the parenthetical paragraph of verses 17-18, and so the pronouns them and they in verses 19 20 refer back to the eleven. So I agree with you that the pronouns they and them in verse 20 refers to the eleven, but this does not mean that the same pronouns in verses 17-18 also refer to the eleven. You must consider the text itself and the context. Verse 15 says, preach the gospel to every creature. Next verse says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Who is the he that believeth? Those to whom they preached, which is EVERY CREATURE. Hasn't Jesus just finished upbraiding the eleven for their unbelief that he was seen? THEY are the ones that are considered unbelievers at this point in the text. So, he tells them their commission, then the conditions, then the signs. He that believeth refers to the eleven, whom he had just chastised for unbelief. He is preparing them for their journey, warning them that their unbelief will cause them to be damned, and that they must be baptised, too. One more comment: the book of Acts tells me that the mention of signs following in verse 20 was not limited only to the eleven. The signs accompanied all those who believed, the eleven, plus others who believed their preaching. The book of Acts is filled with examples of such. The eleven were not the exclusive ones who experienced these signs. This is a matter of Biblical fact, and any revelation you have to the contrary is false because it would contradict the Biblical record. No contradiction in my understanding, Dave. I never said the signs were limited to the eleven...you imply I say that. I am saying that in v16-20, Jesus is only SPEAKING to the eleven about themselves, so at this point is speaking of signs that will accompany the eleven as they go out. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't know if you understand what I am saying, but if you believe that the signs also apply to people other than these eleven, why try and make the argument that this particular text does not? Perhaps if you do read it this way, you would be arguing that while you do not see the text as being applicable to anyone other than the eleven, you believe that we can take it to apply also to us by extension in that the eleven are examples for us. David, If we make the error of thinking that this text applies, in this instance and usage, to other Christians than the 11, even though elsewhere some of these signs may be discussed relative to other Christians, then we risk making the same error anytime Jesus talks makes a statement, thinking that his words apply equally to all. I think understanding this aspect of the Bible is very important and very frequently abused. By the way, is there any place else in scritpure where Christians (other than the 11 in Mark vv16-20) are told they can be bitten by poisonous snakes and not be harmed? If not, then I woulkd say this applies to the 11 only...not all Christians. Perry 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] Who decides
David wrote: Jesus is speaking to the eleven. We agree on this. Verses 16-18 use pronouns such as he, they, and them. All of these pronouns in these verses refer to the creatures to whom they preach. We know this because the context of his message to the eleven is preaching the gospel to every creature. He is giving them the reason why they should be preaching, because of those to whom they preach, some will believe and be baptized and thereby be saved, while others would not believe and would be damned. Jesus then goes on to teach that sings would follow them that believe. Who are them that believe? Those who believe the gospel being preached by the eleven. How can you view this any other way? What motivates you to interpret the passage another way? Think about that. Perry wrote: Sounds to me like you are making a lot of assumtions that the text does not contain. Such as? Perhaps if you identify the assumptions you are making when you read the passage, it might help me see your point. 1. All of these pronouns in these verses refer to the creatures to whom they preach. This is an assumption on your part, and I believe to be incorrect. 2. We know this because the context of his message to the eleven is preaching the gospel to every creature. I beleive the verse about preaching to all creatures to be parenthetical to the rest of the passage, telling the apostles their commission, but not changing the subject of his address, namely those whom he had just upbraided for thier unbelief. 3. He is giving them the reason why they should be preaching I think this is a wrong assumption. You can make that assertion ONLY if you have incorrectly determined the antecedent to be all creatures. In this verse He is telling th 11 WHAT to do, not why they should be doing it. 4. because of those to whom they preach, some will believe and be baptized and thereby be saved, while others would not believe and would be damned. While this may be a true statement in general, it does not follow from #1, and fails due to #2. it only makes sense when the ones whom he had just upbraided for their unbelief is the antecedent. 5. Who are them that believe? Those who believe the gospel being preached by the eleven. Not quite. He is talking about the 11, whom he just finished upbraiding for their unbelief! 6. How can you view this any other way? What motivates you to interpret the passage another way? As I said previously, but you are doubting, this understanding of the passage was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit. Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
Comments below: From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perry wrote: I beleive the verse about preaching to all creatures to be parenthetical to the rest of the passage, telling the apostles their commission, but not changing the subject of his address, namely those whom he had just upbraided for thier unbelief. The verses leading up to and including verse 14 are a narrative spoken by the author, John. John is the one who refers to the eleven as they andthem. This is not Jesus addressing anyone. Either you haved erred, or you need to explain this to me...I thought the author was Mark. Verse 15 starts with, And HE said unto them... I assume the antecedent of He is Jesus. So after this phrase in verse 15, it is Jesus speaking, up to but not including verse 19 where it says, THEN AFTER THE LORD HAD SPOKEN. Verse 19 resumes the narrative by John, and so the antecedent of they and them switches back to the original, which would be the eleven. So, when he says YE in verse 15, he is referring to the eleven, and therefore they or them are referring to others to whom they preach. When Jesus is speaking, he would use the word YE again if he meant to refer to the eleven. Why start out talking to them saying Go YE but then switch to saying THEY or THEM? Who speaks in this way, addressing a group and instead of saying YOU says THEY or THEM? Or is it possible that you assume that Jesus is not the one speaking in verses 16-18? David, let me repeat the verses here with the antecedents embedded...perhaps that will better show you what the Holy Spirit revealed to me: (14) Afterward he [Jesus] appeared unto the eleven as they [the eleven] sat at meat, and upbraided them [the eleven] with their [the eleven] unbelief and hardness of heart, because they [the eleven] believed not them [the Marys] which had seen him [Jesus] after he [Jesus] was risen. (15) And he [Jesus] said unto them [the eleven], Go ye [the eleven] into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [It is important at this point to recall that Jesus has just upbraided the apostles (v14) for their unbelief!] (16) He [of the eleven] that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he [of the eleven] that believeth not shall be damned. [notice in verse 17 that the focus changes from the 11 to those of the eleven that believe (which turned out to be all of them, I believe). It is no longer proper to refer to them as ye since they and them now refers to a subset of ye. He cannot say ye without implying ALL of the 11!] (17) And these signs shall follow them [of the elven] that believe; In my name shall they [those of the eleven that believe] cast out devils; they [those of the eleven that believe] shall speak with new tongues; (18) They [those of of the eleven that believe] shall take up serpents; and if they [those of of the eleven that believe] drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them [those of of the eleven that believe]; they [those of of the eleven that believe] shall lay hands on the sick, and they [those of of the eleven that believe] shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them [the eleven], he [Jesus] was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they [the eleven] went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them [the eleven], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. That is how it was revealed to me. As to your earlier reference to Luke 10:19 (in a different post) about the 70 treading on serpents...the 70 were given a similar commision as was given to the 11...so it makes sense that they would receive similar powers. We cannot assume that if Jesus gave certain powers to the 11, or to the seventy, that it automatically means all Christians would have those same powers. If it states elsewhere that all Christians are given certain powers, then so be it. But when he is talking to the 11, or to the seventy...that is to whom is giving the powers. (If you still doubt me, go drink some poison, play with some poisonous snakes and scorpions, or walk out in front of a speeding vehicle. Do you look left and right before crossing the road? If so, doesn't that show a lack of faith in Luke 10:19 and Luke 16:18) Also, notice that verse 20 affirms my understanding by stating that the Apostles did indeed confirm the gospel with the powerss they were given...why does it not affirm that those to whom the gospel was preached exhibited those signs? I think we have covered everything and each know what our differences are. There is only one thing left to be resolved...which of us was led to our understanding by the Holy Spirit? You? Me? Neither? (We have agreed that we both could not be led to our respective conclusions by the Holy Spirit.) Perry -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides
David, Regarding your item 2, we might also conclude that Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles, and that this does not apply to all believers. The key is to identify the antecedent of He in verse 16, which I believe to exclusively be the apostles. Perry David wrote: 2. Mark 16:16-20 (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. How many Christians have believed and been baptized but have not seen any of these signs follow them? Again, we either have to conclude that the concept of faith as taught by Jesus is something greater than the popular concept of it, or that Jesus was bearing false testimony here, or perhaps that this passage only applies to the immediate believers to whom he spoke. I take the position that faith is something more than what most people think faith is. -- 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
I stated that I do in my original post below. From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who decides Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:46:19 -0600 Perry, so do you think the He in verse 16 refers only to the apostles, too? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:54 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides cd: I agree Perry. [Original Message] From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 12/21/2005 5:00:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides David, Regarding your item 2, we might also conclude that Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles, and that this does not apply to all believers. The key is to identify the antecedent of He in verse 16, which I believe to exclusively be the apostles. Perry David wrote: 2. Mark 16:16-20 (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. How many Christians have believed and been baptized but have not seen any of these signs follow them? Again, we either have to conclude that the concept of faith as taught by Jesus is something greater than the popular concept of it, or that Jesus was bearing false testimony here, or perhaps that this passage only applies to the immediate believers to whom he spoke. I take the position that faith is something more than what most people think faith is. -- 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] Who decides
Izzy, This text addresses only the 11 apostles, to whom Jesus was speaking. There may be other texts that say the same for other believers that v16 says for the apostles...but this verse does not. Do you know of any other verses that apply to all believers? This verse (16) is often used as a proof-text that baptism is required for salvation. But, since it is applied only to the apostles, we cannot generally say this text applies to anyone else. Reading v14-v20 will reveal that Jesus is addressing the apostles. In v16, when you see he, replace it with it's antecedent (the apostles). So when 'he' occurs in v16, it refers to he, of the apostles. Then, he tells them of all the signs and protections they (the apostles) will take with them when they go out. This also means that the signs in v17 and v18 apply only to the apostles. BTW, Izzy, the Holy Spirit revealed this understanding to me. Perry From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who decides Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:20:29 -0600 Really So only the apostles are saved if they believe and are baptized? That does not go for anyone since the apostles? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:24 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who decides I stated that I do in my original post below. From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who decides Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:46:19 -0600 Perry, so do you think the He in verse 16 refers only to the apostles, too? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:54 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides cd: I agree Perry. [Original Message] From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 12/21/2005 5:00:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who decides David, Regarding your item 2, we might also conclude that Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles, and that this does not apply to all believers. The key is to identify the antecedent of He in verse 16, which I believe to exclusively be the apostles. Perry David wrote: 2. Mark 16:16-20 (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. How many Christians have believed and been baptized but have not seen any of these signs follow them? Again, we either have to conclude that the concept of faith as taught by Jesus is something greater than the popular concept of it, or that Jesus was bearing false testimony here, or perhaps that this passage only applies to the immediate believers to whom he spoke. I take the position that faith is something more than what most people think faith is. -- 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
[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] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and Davi
For what is is worth, huzzah is an old english word that has become hurrah today. I first heard it at a renaissance festival. I think you mean Hoo-ha, which is the term Pacino used in Scent of a Woman. From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:47:16 -0600 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] sweat
Gary, It seems to me that Blaine's questions are so far out of scope of what the Bible teaches, that either he is intentionally playing stupid to encourage debate, or has not read the Bible enough to understand the issues. (There are some other minor possiibilities, but these seemlike the two most likely). Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] sweat Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:40:45 -0700 CPL, what's your perspective on (just) this question? On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:48:32 -0800 Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..you are baiting Christians on TT..else you truly have not read the [KJV?]. || -- 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] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles
Gary wrote, CPL, Are [Bible] readers *who believe that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS for the already converted 'sums up the Law and Prophets'* Christian/s? [asterisks by CPL] Depends. Were these Bible readers Christians to begin with? I don't think that having that belief alone determines whether or not one is a Christian.. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 CPL, Are [Bible] readers who believe that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS for the already converted 'sums up the Law and Prophets' Christian/s? On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... jt || -- for reference: 7:12So in everything, do [the good] to others [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -- 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] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles
Not really. But, is also depends on the nature of the error. Everyone has error in their theology, in my opinion. The question in my mind is how much error is too much error? How far can one get from the true meaning of the gospel message before they are outside of Christianity. While I cannot draw a hard line separatig those inside from those outside (since degree of error seems to be a contunuum), I can only identify groups that I believe are firmly inside or outside. There are basic beliefs that identify one as a Christian. Having the right Jesus and the right God is the starting point. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 ..do Bible readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the woods? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CPL, Are [Bible] readers who believe that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS for the already converted 'sums up the Law and Prophets' Christian/s? On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... jt || -- for reference: 7:12So in everything, do [the good] to others [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -- 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] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles
Gary, I do not classify who is a Christian and who is not along denominational lines. Christians are those who are members of the body of Christ. You can tell when one of them becomes a Christian...at the same time they become an ex-them. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:16:04 -0700 ..while they (we know they:) ain't Protestants, are they Christians? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..do Bible readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the woods? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CPL, Are [Bible] readers who believe that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS for the already converted 'sums up the Law and Prophets' Christian/s? On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... jt || -- for reference: 7:12So in everything, do [the good] to others [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -- 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] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles
If they were, they would be ex-them. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:20:48 -0700 ..if so, (we know they ain't classic Protestants, but :) are they Christians? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..do Bible readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the woods? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CPL, Are [Bible] readers who believe that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS for the already converted 'sums up the Law and Prophets' Christian/s? On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... jt || -- for reference: 7:12So in everything, do [the good] to others [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -- 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] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles
I qualified that in a previous post. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:36:23 -0700 ..mercy me (the same question again,Bro--but did you ever wonder how much error actually qualifies Bible readers as truly Christian? :) On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:25:36 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:16:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..while they (we know they:) ain't Protestants, are they Christians? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:11:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..do Bible readers 'camp' around theological error in your neck of the woods? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:00:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CPL, Are [Bible] readers who believe that JC taught that encouraging the baptism of the HS for the already converted 'sums up the Law and Prophets' Christian/s? On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:01:39 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Matt 7:11 is a scripture that is used to encourage people to seek the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... jt || -- for reference: 7:12So in everything, do [the good] to others [t]hat you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -- 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] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles
If you are still addressing me, Gary, it is absolutely better to read it. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:36:33 -0700 ..is it better for a Christian to read the Bible or leave it on the shelf? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:36:23 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..mercy me (the same question again,Bro--but did you ever wonder how much error actually qualifies Bible readers as truly Christian? :) || -- 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] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles
Gary, While I prefer the KJV, I am not a KJV only advocate and believe that the crimson thread of salvation is evident in all of the popular translations, and all can lead one to salvation. However, when one begins to study the Bible more deeply, I believe that comparing several translations, and even using a greek dictionary at times to resolve disagreements, can help to understand difficult passages. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Condition of heart of unregenerate gentiles Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:38:56 -0700 ..it doesn't matter as long as its the KJV? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:36:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..is it better for a Christian to read the Bible or leave it on the shelf? On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:36:23 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..mercy me (the same question again,Bro--but did you ever wonder how much error actually qualifies Bible readers as truly Christian? :) || -- 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] Banning/Shunning not the same thing
Lance, and all, I removed Dave from the list entirely until we could resolve the issues at hand off-line. I suspect he will be returning soon. Perry the Moderator From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Banning/Shunning not the same thing Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:21:06 -0500 Once banned, I assume that such may stay on TT for the purpose of reading. Is this so? L -- 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] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ...
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? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ... Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:24:46 EST 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. 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? -- 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] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ...
What if you are wrong? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ... Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:06:25 EST 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? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] SO THEN it is safe to assume that NO MORMON RESPONSE TO THE ... Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:24:46 EST 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. 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? -- 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] ** Moderator comment **
Blaine, why do you cintinue to comment on a thread that has been banned? No more posts on this topic, please. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment ** Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:12:50 EST Oh, yeah, now I remember writing that. I should have just said I was holding my breath, huh? :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/16/2005 8:54:01 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can you print the entire context, please? Blainerb From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (http://us.f537.mail.yahoo.com/ym/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (http://us.f537.mail.yahoo.com/ym/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Subject: Izzy's sex life Hi Izzy, I was looking through some of my old e-mails and came upon one with the above subject title--jus' thought I'd let you know I am still waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . . Blainerb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:03:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since you have been asked to stop stirring the pot And some subjects have been identified as OFF LIMITS I have declined to comment But since you guys can not leave it alone I was refering to your PRIVATE email off list to a member of this list stating you were waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . . First of all, I don't recall writing to anyone in private. If I did, it may have been because I had not noticed it was private. Who was it that got the letter in private, Kevin? Are you the one? It must have been you, or Dean--both of you have brought this up--and if it was private why did you post it contrary to the rules?. Secondly, I vaguely remember making that comment, but I don't recall the context in which I made it. Can you print the entire context, please? Blainerb -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] sweat
Blaine, I honestly believe you are baiting Christians on TT, or else you truly have not read the Bible. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] sweat Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:36:58 EST BLOOD is the key word, I think--which he shed in large quantities in Gethsemane--apparently more than he actually shed on Calvary. When he returns he will be wearing red--right? This is a symbol of his blood drenching his entire body, which it did not do on the cross. In fact, other than the wounds in his hands, feet, and sides, little blood was shed on the Calvary cross. Blainerb In a message dated 12/16/2005 9:06:53 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine, your question reveals why you donât understand Christian reverence for the Cross. Jesus had to die on the cross as the payment for our sins. He was the innocent, perfect sacrificial Passover lamb, slain for the sins of the world. Just as the Jews, who were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, had to paint the blood of the Passover lamb on their doorposts to make the Destroyer pass by them during judgment on that horrible night in Egypt when all the firstborn were slain, Jesus serves as our blood sacrifice, that we might be spared death for our slavery to sin, and deliverance from sinâjust as the Jews were delivered from Egypt. Jesus, the Firstborn, who was without sin, was the only one qualified to be that perfect holy sacrifice for our sins. It was His Blood, shed on the Cross (nowhere else, because THAT is where He actually was slain), that redeems all those who take cover under it, just as the Jews did under their doorposts. THAT is why satan HATES the mention of THE BLOOD OF CHRISTâbecause THAT is what OVERCAME his evil devices and has sealed his eternal doom, as well as the Believerâs eternal deliverance from damnation. May God help you to understand this. Izzy -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: ***Moderator Comment** Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Blaine, please don't stir up the pot. You contribute nothing with your comments. Also, you say below, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:, but you have not included anything I wrote! You must have removed the part I wrote without removing the attribution. I doubt it was intentional, but please be careful to properly attribute comments to the original authors. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: ***Moderator Comment** Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:50:03 EST Blainerb: There are none so blind as he who will not see. Ad libbing, flapping the gums, rationalizing the truth, gainsaying, etc., sets up a snow storm intended to do but one thing--deceive. When that fails, one resorts to being unreasonable--it always comes down to stubborn, obstinate refusal to be reasonable. So goes it on TT, and Kevin? Whew! Is this the epitome of this tactic or what? In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:23:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have turned the flapping of the gums into a vocation, Kevin. This is not completely true, however, if you still have that one tooth. I suspect that Terry is a full-time Christian. I met your challenge and what did we get for that -- yet another challenge of someone else. You are a lazy Christian, Kevin, doing those things that so often do not count for much but take a considerable amount of time.nothing to be proud of. You get no more tired of the senseless than do the rest of us. jd -- 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] Offence given offence taken - MORMONS??
Blaine, Please try to separate posts I make that are from my own personal viewpoint, and statements I make as moderator. You seem to want to mix the two. If you want to claim that as the moderator I am biased, then please refer only to items I post as the moderator. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Offence given offence taken - MORMONS?? Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:10:28 EST In a message dated 12/15/2005 4:38:15 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lance Muir wrote: Perry, Dean, Kevin et al certainly GIVE offence vis a vis Mormonism. Do you, the Mormon contingent on TT, take offence at what's said by them? Apparently DaveH is not the only one to see the moderator-bias on TT. Blainerb -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] MORMONS ON TT
Blaine, if you find unbecoming behavior when I have been responding as the moderator, point it out. However, when not posting as a moderator, I reserve the right to engage in what Lance might consider conduct unbecoming (the same rights as any other TT'r). If you think that the moderator should not be allowed to post personally, then talk to the list owner and ask him to add that rule. BTW, the moderator position is always open...just inquire of the list owner. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] MORMONS ON TT Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:18:07 EST In a message dated 12/14/2005 5:41:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why don't the moderator(s) (plural?) set up some sort of a code of conduct with respect to our mutual engagement? IMO, there exists a double standard with respect to them and us. We, or so it would appear, are entitled to SLANDER THEM (Mormons being the 'bad' guys) but, they are not able to SLANDER US!!(Christians being the 'good guys') What's the deal with that. Even the moderator occasionally engages in 'conduct unbecoming'. As I said, apparently this double standard is not being done in a corner--I consider Lance to be among the more reasonable people on TT--Maybe he should become the moderator??? Blainerb -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment **
Kevin, Blaine this is a banned thread...please move on. From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment ** Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:53:48 -0800 (PST) Can you print the entire context, please? Blainerb From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Izzy's sex life Hi Izzy, I was looking through some of my old e-mails and came upon one with the above subject title--jus' thought I'd let you know I am still waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . . Blainerb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/16/2005 2:03:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since you have been asked to stop stirring the pot And some subjects have been identified as OFF LIMITS I have declined to comment But since you guys can not leave it alone I was refering to your PRIVATE email off list to a member of this list stating you were waiting with 'bated breath for your more complete description . . . First of all, I don't recall writing to anyone in private. If I did, it may have been because I had not noticed it was private. Who was it that got the letter in private, Kevin? Are you the one? It must have been you, or Dean--both of you have brought this up--and if it was private why did you post it contrary to the rules?. Secondly, I vaguely remember making that comment, but I don't recall the context in which I made it. Can you print the entire context, please? Blainerb __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Blaine, Try reading through the NT and replace every occurrence of the word cross with star. The text becomes meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part of the Chrsitian landscape, directly from scripture. It has meaning and value beyond merely an instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our freedom in Christ. The star does not. The atonement did not happen in Gethsemane, it did not happen at the resurrection. It happened on the cross. Our Lord cried out it is finished at the moment the debt we can never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try to change that is to deny scripture. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:24:13 EST As I said to Iz, the cross is deeply embedded in the Christian psyche. It is in mine as well. But since you guys have made an issue of the stars thing, it has occurred to me that stars are better than crosses, and I advocate changing crosses on all Christian churches to stars--whether 5 or 6 pointed, is not an issue with me.The Jewish star of David, by the way, is probably a symbol of their expected Messiah--I'd have to check that out. Maybe they had it right in the beginning. Blainerb In a message dated 12/13/2005 7:36:59 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: check out these crosses: http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/index.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:39:55 EST Blainerb: There are quite a few cross songs in the LDS hymnbook. It is not a bad word, it is just the context in which it is used. We believe in taking up our cross, so to speak, which means we give up the pleasures of the world, and are even willing to suffer if necessary to live more righteously. But we still think the cross as a visible symbol of Jesus falls short of what He stands for--the most important of which is resurrection to life in the Kingdom of God--God's life. We do not think that is adequately represented by a cross. Now stars, whether pentagrams or whatever, obviously fill the bill, since that's where we hope to be--in heaven, where the stars are at. :) Stars make for an excellent symbol of Jesus Christ, whereas a cross is dubious at best. In a message dated 12/13/2005 5:56:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why did the LDS CHOIR sing songs about the Cross you dispise at general Conference last October? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/12/2005 7:42:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the best songs I ever heard was titled, ââ¬ÅHe Loved Me with a Crossâ⬠Â. iz One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :) Blainerb -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
***Moderator Comment** Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
John and Kevin, stop the name calling. Go private if you wish to continue. From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:05:32 -0800 (PST) if you still have that one tooth. Discussions with you always devolve into questions of whether your gut hangs below your belt still. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have turned the flapping of the gums into a vocation, Kevin. This is not completely true, however, if you still have that one tooth. I suspect that Terry is a full-time Christian. I met your challenge and what did we get for that -- yet another challenge of someone else. You are a lazy Christian, Kevin, doing those things that so often do not count for much but take a considerable amount of time.nothing to be proud of. You get no more tired of the senseless than do the rest of us. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums. When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS! It is a False Piety to say that another should do such such when one does NOTHING. God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.. They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to brag Invariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a nickel for every time...) I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week? They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their reward. Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO? Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them. They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be appropriate. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half cocked [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what does your little chuck and jive have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to ad hom. but your comments below are ad hom. By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to the discussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for ad hom is begging the question. Truth regarding ad hom has NOTHING TO DO WITH AD HOM. This is just something you all made up.If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is ad hom. You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the Lord's work than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels (busier and Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? AND how do you do such? I find that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in WORD but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way. My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing! As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you. Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this
Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil
Blaine, please don't us ad-hominem arguments or name calling on TT. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:47:53 EST I don't doubt it at all, Iz, you are definitely a class act on TT (Except when you kiss up to Satan--er, I mean, Kevin). :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/13/2005 6:52:54 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Itâs good enough for me. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 4:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil Do they teach reading where you're from Izzie? How 'bout 'rithmatic? And Spellling? Blainerb: -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Ursa Major and the North Star
Blaine, All constellations, indeed, all stars in the northern hemisphere appear to rotate around the north star. It truly is the rotation of the earth that gives that apparent rotation of the stars. Why is the Ursa Major being singled out? Check out this photo... http://courses.washington.edu/phy21456/chapter1_216complete_files/image005.jpg Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Ursa Major and the North Star Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:38:50 EST Ursa Major, Dictionary definition: Ursa Major (The Big Dipper) n : a constellation outside the Zodiac that rotates around the North Star [syn: _Great Bear_ (http://dict.die.net/great%20bear/) , Ursa Major] -- 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] Almost(s) Anti(s)
Dave, and others, this topic has been banned, so please communicate privately on it. From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Almost(s) Anti(s) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:02:44 -0800 *Who specifically, are we talking about here? Kevin? :)* DAVEH: No...I don't think so, Blaine. If anybody is hung up on sexual stuff, it seems like Dean gets particularly excited (that may not be the best word to describe the situation) when the topic is broached. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Who specifically, are we talking about here? Kevin? :)* Blainerb In a message dated 12/12/2005 8:14:09 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Very perceptive on your part, Dean. I have noticed this to be patently true. iz Satan led people are always accuses others of the very thing they are doing.. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] ** Moderator comment **
Dave, Please try to refrain from making sexual references, especially false accuastions. This is not the forum for that? I am sure there are many discussion forums about sex if that type of discussion interests you. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry's Sexually Suggestive Comments Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:07:35 -0800 *If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! * DAVEH: I wonder if Dean is going to rebuke you for making such sexually suggestive comments, Perry! If not, will we then have another example of hypocritical Christianity in TT? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Just be sure you remember your secret password and secret handshake so Joseph Smith will allow you entrance into heaven. *If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off... Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST I guess I never got to know you, Christine--but hope to meet you in the great beyond--you may be required to testify at the Bar of God as to what you have seen and heard on TT-- Blainerb In a message dated 12/11/2005 11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am signing off. I have gotten sucked into the world of TT, and I think it would be beneficial to my GPA to bid adeiu. Thanks for all the discussions. I have learned a great deal. May the Lord bless you and keep you all. It would be cool to meet you all in real life some day. But maybe not all in the same room. I wonder how that would turn out... :-) -Christine Miller -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] ** Moderator comment **
Dave, lets take this offline, okay? From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment ** Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:29:32 -0800 * Please try to /refrain /from making sexual references, especially /false accuastions/.* DAVEH: Let's see if I understand this, Perry. Recently I asked some questions that were no more sexually oriented than what you commonly make, Dean then claimed foul..and you banned further discussion based on the /perception /you and Dean had about what those comments might have implied. Now you have made a comment that can be perceived to be sexually charged.. *If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! * ..and you don't want to recognize the double standard? It is interesting that when you or other TTers make any kind of denigrating remarks toward LDS theology with sexual implications, nothing is considered off limits. When I point out this obvious double standard, I am cautioned by the moderator to /refrain /from bringing the discussion to the TT table under the guise of making/ false accusations/. It must be convenient to have a moderator who can see non-LDS posters through one non-judgmental eye, and perceive a completely different perspective of LDS posters through the other, more critical eye. I suppose if one has an ax to grind against LDS theology, and is not embarrassed to publicly admit suchthen it should not surprise anybody to find that person practicing a double standard. The curious part about this is that it happens on a forum called /TruthTalk/, where /truth /is presupposed to be the dominating factor, yet it seems to be suppressed when it comes to recognizing the Christian hypocrisy found here. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, * Please try to /refrain /from making sexual references, especially /false accuastions/.* This is not the forum for that? I am sure there are many discussion forums about sex if that type of discussion interests you. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry's Sexually Suggestive Comments Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:07:35 -0800 **If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! ** DAVEH: I wonder if Dean is going to rebuke you for making such sexually suggestive comments, Perry! If not, will we then have another example of hypocritical Christianity in TT? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Just be sure you remember your secret password and secret handshake so Joseph Smith will allow you entrance into heaven. *If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off... Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST I guess I never got to know you, Christine--but hope to meet you in the great beyond--you may be required to testify at the Bar of God as to what you have seen and heard on TT-- Blainerb In a message dated 12/11/2005 11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am signing off. I have gotten sucked into the world of TT, and I think it would be beneficial to my GPA to bid adeiu. Thanks for all the discussions. I have learned a great deal. May the Lord bless you and keep you all. It would be cool to meet you all in real life some day. But maybe not all in the same room. I wonder how that would turn out... :-) -Christine Miller -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] Perry's Sexually Suggestive Comments
See previous post about off-line. From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry's Sexually Suggestive Comments Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:00:32 -0800 (PST) Sexually suggestive? are you now admitting your god has sex with mortal women? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! DAVEH: I wonder if Dean is going to rebuke you for making such sexually suggestive comments, Perry! If not, will we then have another example of hypocritical Christianity in TT? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Just be sure you remember your secret password and secret handshake so Joseph Smith will allow you entrance into heaven. If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off... Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST I guess I never got to know you, Christine--but hope to meet you in the great beyond--you may be required to testify at the Bar of God as to what you have seen and heard on TT-- Blainerb In a message dated 12/11/2005 11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am signing off. I have gotten sucked into the world of TT, and I think it would be beneficial to my GPA to bid adeiu. Thanks for all the discussions. I have learned a great deal. May the Lord bless you and keep you all. It would be cool to meet you all in real life some day. But maybe not all in the same room. I wonder how that would turn out... :-) -Christine Miller -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. - Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -- 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] ** Moderator comment **
Kevin, we banned this topic, so if you want to discuss it further, do so offline, okay? From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment ** Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:47:32 -0800 (PST) Dean has not made any Sexually suggestive comments as you have claimed in fact it is the LDS folk who have made comments and done some things thru private emails under the table Again LDS response is as IRRELEVANT as yeah but the Flag has stars Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please try to refrain from making sexual references, especially false accuastions. DAVEH: Let's see if I understand this, Perry. Recently I asked some questions that were no more sexually oriented than what you commonly make, Dean then claimed foul..and you banned further discussion based on the perception you and Dean had about what those comments might have implied. Now you have made a comment that can be perceived to be sexually charged.. If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! ..and you don't want to recognize the double standard? It is interesting that when you or other TTers make any kind of denigrating remarks toward LDS theology with sexual implications, nothing is considered off limits. When I point out this obvious double standard, I am cautioned by the moderator to refrain from bringing the discussion to the TT table under the guise of making false accusations. It must be convenient to have a moderator who can see non-LDS posters through one non-judgmental eye, and perceive a completely different perspective of LDS posters through the other, more critical eye. I suppose if one has an ax to grind against LDS theology, and is not embarrassed to publicly admit suchthen it should not surprise anybody to find that person practicing a double standard. The curious part about this is that it happens on a forum called TruthTalk, where truth is presupposed to be the dominating factor, yet it seems to be suppressed when it comes to recognizing the Christian hypocrisy found here. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, Please try to refrain from making sexual references, especially false accuastions. This is not the forum for that? I am sure there are many discussion forums about sex if that type of discussion interests you. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry's Sexually Suggestive Comments Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:07:35 -0800 *If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! * DAVEH: I wonder if Dean is going to rebuke you for making such sexually suggestive comments, Perry! If not, will we then have another example of hypocritical Christianity in TT? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Just be sure you remember your secret password and secret handshake so Joseph Smith will allow you entrance into heaven. *If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off... Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST I guess I never got to know you, Christine--but hope to meet you in the great beyond--you may be required to testify at the Bar of God as to what you have seen and heard on TT-- Blainerb In a message dated 12/11/2005 11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am signing off. I have gotten sucked into the world of TT, and I think it would be beneficial to my GPA to bid adeiu. Thanks for all the discussions. I have learned a great deal. May the Lord bless you and keep you all. It would be cool to meet you all in real life some day. But maybe not all in the same room. I wonder how that would turn out... :-) -Christine Miller -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. - Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
check out these crosses: http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/index.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:39:55 EST Blainerb: There are quite a few cross songs in the LDS hymnbook. It is not a bad word, it is just the context in which it is used. We believe in taking up our cross, so to speak, which means we give up the pleasures of the world, and are even willing to suffer if necessary to live more righteously. But we still think the cross as a visible symbol of Jesus falls short of what He stands for--the most important of which is resurrection to life in the Kingdom of God--God's life. We do not think that is adequately represented by a cross. Now stars, whether pentagrams or whatever, obviously fill the bill, since that's where we hope to be--in heaven, where the stars are at. :) Stars make for an excellent symbol of Jesus Christ, whereas a cross is dubious at best. In a message dated 12/13/2005 5:56:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why did the LDS CHOIR sing songs about the Cross you dispise at general Conference last October? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/12/2005 7:42:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the best songs I ever heard was titled, ââ¬ÅHe Loved Me with a Crossâ⬠Â. iz One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :) Blainerb -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Congressional Medal of Honor--inverted pentagram
Blaine, you seem to be missing a fine point here. Christians do not use crosses as a symbol of Jesus, like mormons do with stars and planets. The cross, to the Christian, is a reminder of the tremendous price that Jesus paid for our sins. BIG difference. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Congressional Medal of Honor--inverted pentagram Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:08:15 EST Blainerb: I guess I will have to spell it out for Kevin. He doesn't seem to get it. It goes like this: If the top brass in the Honorable US military can use inverted pentagrams for the nation's highest honor medal, without worrying about being accused of indulging in Satanism, how is it that Mormon higher-ups cannot do the same? As I have said, I like stars better than crosses for symbols of Jesus Christ anyway. Apparently the designers of Mormon temples do too. In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:55:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The US Military is not the SOURCE of ALL Truth nor the RESTORATION of such. As the conduit of Truth for all men of what significance are Inverted Pentagrams on the LDS Temples? Why did the symbology of the OT Jewish Temple point at ALL Times to a SACRIFICE? Where are the star symbols on the temple talked about in the Bible? Chap Verse? Acts 7:43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Medalsofhonor.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Medalsofhonor.jpg) Three different United States Medals of Honor currently exist, one each for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Blainerb: According to Kevin, the Medals of Honor shown here should be classified as symbols of Satanism, since they are inverted pentagrams!!! -- 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] Cross
Again, Blaine, I point out that the cross is not seen or used as a symbol for jesus. Do you understand that? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:22:51 EST In a message dated 12/13/2005 9:03:40 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then why put them on the House of the lord? Blainerb: Hmm, well it goes like this, Kevin: One of the names of Jesus Christ is The Bright and Morning Star.' He has also been called Wonderful, Counselor, the King of Heaven, the Creator, the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God, etc. Have you ever heard or read about him being called the cross? or, The old Rugged Cross? Stars are higher than crosses. Stars are more beautiful than crosses. Stars represent where we want to be after we leave this Vail of Tears. Most Christians would like it better if we put crosses on our temples. But we don't because, we are trying to be more like Jesus, and he was perhaps the most independently minded person to walk the earth. We are not trying to be like everyone else, we are simply doing what we think most appropriate, considering we idolize and worship Jesus Christ. We like stars better than crosses--why is that an arrow in your side? Why does that offend you? -- 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] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
As you like. From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:59:00 -0800 DAVEH: Does that mean I should reconsider thinking of you as a hypocritical Christian? :-) Charles Perry Locke wrote: I did and I do. But, with your aging selective memory, you probably would not recall that :-) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:12:56 -0800 *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references* DAVEH:If you knew you did such Perry, then did you consider reprimanding yourself as you might reprimand another TTer for a similar transgression?IOWDo you hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others? Charles Perry Locke wrote: As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references*, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- 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] Cross
I don't think I used the work glorified, did I? Or idolized, even. I don't think Christians glorify or idolize it. I have never seen any Christians pray to it, although RCC do have it on a string of beads and they hold it when they pray. But, I do not think they are praying to the cross. Christians do not depict Christ on the cross because He is risen. The RCC depict him as crucified every day. If you want references, just search the NT for cross and see how often it is used by the apostles and Jesus himself as a symbol. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:44:56 -0800 *I would expect Satan to teach his people to shun the cross...it is the very instrument of his defeat.* DAVEH: Really? As I see it, the cross was the most successful tool Satan could devise to torture and kill our beloved Lord. Everything else he tried failedbut, the cross did the job. The /*resurrection */was the defeat of deathand Satan. Removing the guarded stone blocking the entrance, and rising from the tomb was the symbol of Satan's defeat, Perry. Perhaps you should consider hanging a millstone about your neck.. How do you see it that Jesus and the Apostles glorified the cross? Did they idolize it, and turn it into jewelery? Was it displayed on their edifices? Or are those examples simply Christian traditions that lay no claim to Biblical validity? Biblical references would be appreciated. Charles Perry Locke wrote: I hope you don't mind me intruding on your intrusion. *I would expect Satan to teach his people to shun the cross...it is the very instrument of his defeat.* Besides, Christ himself used the cross as a symbol, as did the Apostles. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me. And, it is a frequent reminder of the tremendous sacrifice Jesus paid for our sins. I just do not think of that when I see a beehive. Perry */What does the CROSS REPRESENT/* DAVEH: I hope you don't mind me intruding on your discussion with Blaine, Kevin. This topic is of particular interest to me, as I've seen quite a few crosses at the sides of highways I travel. Quite often, they indicate places where people have died, or in the case of cemeteries.where they are buried... ..In the past couple thousand years, many Christians have idolized the cross to depict the death of Jesus. ...which to me seems rather bizarre to meif not macabre. Some Christians have taken to wearing jewelery, and displaying crosses in their abodes and places of worship. .As I see it, those crosses depict the *cruel tool* used to bring not only much pain and suffering to our beloved Savior, but also the device that was used by God's enemies to kill our Lord. This inhumane instrument was designed not only to kill God's children, but at the same time to punitively torture them in a humiliating and degrading way. It always amazes me that some Christians would have such an affinity to such a devilish device that brings pain, suffering and death to the minds of many who see it, and especially to those who were victims of it. I'm curious as to how you would feel about something similar, Kevin. I don't know if you have any children, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume you do. If your enemy were to maliciously use a knife to torture your daughter for a couple days to the point that the wounds killed her, would you be predisposed to wear a piece of jewelry on a chain around your neck in the form of a knife to remind you of what the guy did to your daughter? And, how would you feel if you drove by a gun knife store, and saw a sign depicting knives that looked similar to the one that killed your daughter..Would it bring back fond memories? LDS folks appreciate the dying sacrifice of our Lord in our behalf. But we don't glorify the tool that killed him. It sickens me to think of man's inhumanity that would bring such pain, suffering and death to one who did not deserve it. Nor do we idolize the cross as do so many others. Rather, we prefer to remember his sacrifice and glorify his Father---not the cross--- for the resurrection of his Son. FWIW.We have a large Christian church near us that a few years ago put 3 large prominent crosses on their building that are lit up at night with blue lights that are very noticeable to the cars passing by on the freeway http://www.rollinghills.org/about_us/campus/index.cfm .This picture really doesn't show them very well compared to the cars on the freeway, as it is taken from the wrong angle and at quite a distance. I have sometimes wondered if Jesus were to travel that road, what would he think if he were to pass such an edifice that memorializes his death in such a manner. I
Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off...
Just be sure you remember your secret password and secret handshake so Joseph Smith will allow you entrance into heaven. If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off... Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST I guess I never got to know you, Christine--but hope to meet you in the great beyond--you may be required to testify at the Bar of God as to what you have seen and heard on TT-- Blainerb In a message dated 12/11/2005 11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am signing off. I have gotten sucked into the world of TT, and I think it would be beneficial to my GPA to bid adeiu. Thanks for all the discussions. I have learned a great deal. May the Lord bless you and keep you all. It would be cool to meet you all in real life some day. But maybe not all in the same room. I wonder how that would turn out... :-) -Christine 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] New Subject-AE
Lance, I was not asking for recommendations, just asking you to post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:11:38 -0500 We'd best be certain that we're speaking of the same book(s). When I say that it (the book) is excellent, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING IT! This is particularly true concerning those who believe other texts to function on a par with Scripture. I apologize if I mislead anyone on this. I carry lots of material that I'd not recommend to everyone. Who wouldn't? - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 00:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Lance, post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500 I SELL this book. It's excellent! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 10, 2005 13:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE As you should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only source of spiritual enlightenment! :) I have a book titled Lost Books of the Bible, in which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what should not be included in the holy writ. I tried to find it--must still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give you chapter and verse. In the account it actually gives the sister's name, and describes her as being very beautiful. Blainerb In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine do you read the Bible? It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why not go back and refresh . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make headlines like Cain. Cain married his sister, according to one account. He was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked Able better than Cain--until Able was removed, at least. -- 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] New Subject-AE
But you see, lance, it is almost impossible to have a straight conversation with you. I ask a quaestion, you answer a different one. That is called beign OBTUSE. It does not lead to conversation, and tends to make one appear arrogant. All I want to do is get a link to your bookstore. And, what is an anti-thingy? From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:44:47 -0500 Charles Perry Locke!! I KNEW what you were asking! Let go this anti-thingy Charles. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 09:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Lance, I was not asking for recommendations, just asking you to post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:11:38 -0500 We'd best be certain that we're speaking of the same book(s). When I say that it (the book) is excellent, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING IT! This is particularly true concerning those who believe other texts to function on a par with Scripture. I apologize if I mislead anyone on this. I carry lots of material that I'd not recommend to everyone. Who wouldn't? - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 00:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Lance, post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500 I SELL this book. It's excellent! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 10, 2005 13:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE As you should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only source of spiritual enlightenment! :) I have a book titled Lost Books of the Bible, in which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what should not be included in the holy writ. I tried to find it--must still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give you chapter and verse. In the account it actually gives the sister's name, and describes her as being very beautiful. Blainerb In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine do you read the Bible? It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why not go back and refresh . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make headlines like Cain. Cain married his sister, according to one account. He was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked Able better than Cain--until Able was removed, at least. -- 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. -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
MW: obtuse: 2b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression MW: abstruse: difficult to comprehend Nope. I meant obtuse, not abstruse. What I was intending to say is that you do not approach questions from an acute angle. You most often respond to posts at a less than a direct angle, and have to play around with your own ideas about what others should be saying, or how they should be saying it instead of dealing directly (accutely) with what they have posted. It was a simple request, Lance, and a simple response would have done. IMO, this is not a sign of intelligence. It is a sign of arrogance and egocentrism. If you do not know what a poster is seeking, ask them. If you do, answer them directly. KISS. Thanks for a straight answer to my original question about a website for your bookstore. It only took 4 posts to extract that simple answer from you. As far as attack mode, please read my posts before you respond. Who have I attacked on this forum other than the promoters of mormon doctrine? (I am seeking a straight answer in one post...a difficult feat, I am sure, but IT CAN BE DONE!) Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:15:00 -0500 I believe you mean to use the word ABSTRUSE instead of OBTUSE do you not, Charles? How are you able to MODERATE when you misperceive so regularly? As to the 'anti-thingy', Charles: I weary, even though I must say mea culpa, (1 Cor 2) of you, Dean, Kevin, Judy etc. always writing in the 'attack mode'. PS:I don't have a link. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 09:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE But you see, lance, it is almost impossible to have a straight conversation with you. I ask a quaestion, you answer a different one. That is called beign OBTUSE. It does not lead to conversation, and tends to make one appear arrogant. All I want to do is get a link to your bookstore. And, what is an anti-thingy? From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:44:47 -0500 Charles Perry Locke!! I KNEW what you were asking! Let go this anti-thingy Charles. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 09:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Lance, I was not asking for recommendations, just asking you to post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:11:38 -0500 We'd best be certain that we're speaking of the same book(s). When I say that it (the book) is excellent, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING IT! This is particularly true concerning those who believe other texts to function on a par with Scripture. I apologize if I mislead anyone on this. I carry lots of material that I'd not recommend to everyone. Who wouldn't? - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 00:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Lance, post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500 I SELL this book. It's excellent! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 10, 2005 13:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE As you should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only source of spiritual enlightenment! :) I have a book titled Lost Books of the Bible, in which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what should not be included in the holy writ. I tried to find it--must still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give you chapter and verse. In the account it actually gives the sister's name, and describes her as being very beautiful. Blainerb In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine do you read the Bible? It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why not go back and refresh . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make headlines like Cain. Cain married his sister, according to one account. He was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked Able better than Cain
RE: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Congrats, Lance, I KNEW YOU COULD DO IT! You ansered my question in 1 post, despite all Thanks for KISS, Perry. Take care lest Dean show up a YOUR door. Dean probably understands what KISS means, and I do not think I have anything to worry about. It is the 'OTHER THAN' that I'm speaking of, Perry. Speaking of STUPID (you were weren't you?), your engagement with the Mormons on TT is petulant, pedantic and, lacking any prophetic component whatsoever. No, I was not speaking of STUPID, I was speaking of KEEP IT SIMPLE. But 1) you probably would have not gotten my drift if I had typed KIS, and 2) it is a very common term that simply means, don't make it any more complicated than it has to be. But, since you are seeking ammo against me, I would expect you to focus on that one word. As to your choice of 'obtuse' over 'abstruse' the last linguist I spoke with said that you are incorrect. Twist it any way you want, Lance. My meaning is that you do not answer questions directly. Abstruse implies that your responses cannot be understood. That is not what I am saying here (althought that, too, is often true). And, yes, I am sure you had a conversation with a linguist and intimately discussed the comparative uses of abstruse and obtuse. As to 'intelligence', I lay claim to none and, continue to prove it with every post. You speak down to people on this forum every day, Lance, from a position that assumes your intelligence and everyone elses igorance. Lastly, beloved moderator, should you continue to choose to carry on your engagement with our Mormon friends, might you at least address matters of some substance? Lance, as much as I tire of your cynicism, put downs, ad hokminems, and evasive responsesl, I would not think of asking you not to post on TT, except in the case of the use of ad himinems. So, learn to use your delete key and you will not be bothered. As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. Finally, when you respond to a post it is courteous to include a clip of the item to which you are responding. L P -- 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.
