Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud
- Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud Blaine Borrowman wrote: - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud Blaine Borrowman wrote: Well and good comments, Terry, but not everyone accepts the "givens" of religious belief as we do. Since the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are in one way or other tied up with the shroud, it is a critical evidence of the reality of the Savior's mission on the earth--not merely that he lived, died and was buried--which is accepted by most. The negative image on the shroud is believed by many scientists to have been caused by a burst of radiation, since it shows bone structure as well as surface image of the corpse. For instance, the left thumb of the manenwrapped in the shroudwas underneath the right hand, both being clasped together, yet the shroud image shows the bone structure of that hidden thumb. It shows bone structure throughout the body as well. Blaine Terry wrote: I appreciate your response Blaine, but I am still lost. Would this prove that Jesus was radioactive? If so, would that prove He was the Messiah?Terry **Blainewrites: I am sorry you are still lost Terry, some of us do seem to get lost easily. (:) There is no doubt a lot of confusion in the world today, especially regarding what does or does not constitute proof. As far as proof is concerned,however,I don't see that the visibility of bone structure in the shroud image proves anything.For that matter, science and religion, especially religion, seldom prove anything. Would you agree with this? Judging from my observations, the best we usually get in science is support for a point of view, or theory--and with regards to religion,support for abelief. Those scientists who tout the radiation point of view apparently feel the visibility of bone structure on the Shroud of Turin supports their belief that the negative images came about as the body of Christ was being resurrected, the burst of radiation being part of the resurrection process. No proof of this, of course, just evidence that supports their belief system. If we want to believe something bad enough, we can always find support for it, right? Some, for example, want to believe grace without works is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, sothey find a few isolated passages to support this feel-good belief. Boys (of all ages) who want to have sex with their girlfriends, or view photos of naked women, find a few isolated passages in the Bible, or lack thereof, to support their desire to do these things, and then feel good about doing such.Same difference,I think, what do you think, brother Terry? I dunno Blaine. Seems to me that people who keep looking for proof are a little confused. If we had all the facts, we would not be walking in faith. I guess maybe they just think differently than I do. I don't have to find the ark, or examine a shroud, or feel the warm fuzzies, or have a near death experience. I have just made up my mind to follow Jesus, and I have made up my mind that the best way to do that is to know what the Bible says about doing that. Blaine: Yeah, that's how I feel about the Book of Mormon. There is a lot of evidence, though, and it all fits. Following the Book seems to really give me a beacon in a world darkened by the traditional Belief Systemof the so-called Christian Church. Now there is confusion, if you want confusion! I guess it would be nice in a weak moment to have absolute proof of the truth, but then that would mean walking by information, not faith. Blaine: Faith is the substance of things not seem, as I recall it being defined. I would think some information might be referred to as "substance." The Bible itself is "substance," as are all things God has created. Am I right on this? Just an afterthought. I think I would be troubled by a Savior that glowed in the dark. Terry Blaine:I don't recall even suggesting he glowed in the dark. But if he did, and I was sure it was him, I would have no trouble with it. But I would need some substantial evidence--as the scripture says, "prove all things."
Re: [TruthTalk] Science and Scriptural dietary requirements
Title: Romans , Chapter 14
Blaine: Is swine the only thing that produces
this susecptibility to cancer? There are manyfoods popular
todaybesides pigmeat that are forbidden by the OT. Shrimp, for
one. Do you eat shrimp? Does it do the same as pork once it gets in
the blood? And what about vulture? Or catfish? Or DOG? Or
Horsemeat? (:) Bytheway, Giraffe is not forbidden--it parts the
hoof and chews the cud. Next time I visit the zoo, hmmm, which shall
I have, a neck steak, or . . .?
- Original Message -
From:
Chris Barr
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 5:18
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Science and
Scriptural dietary requirements
\o/ !HALALU Yah!
\o/
Greetings in the Matchless Name of
YahShua [that's the name Jesus was
called by His mom, dad, brothers, sisters, disciples and others who
loved Him] !!
Royal
Raymond Rife created a microscope (The Universal Microscope) in the 1920s
which was more powerful than ANY microscope available today. You can read
about it in many places including the annals of The Smithsonian Institution
("The New Microscopes" 1944/1945).Extensive research by Rife with his
microscope led to development of a cure for cancer that was PROVEN to be
100% effective in 1930s trials overseen by the AMA, The University of
Southern California, and Dr. Milbanks Johnson, M.D. (President, Los Angeles
County Medical Society at the time) at what would later come to be known as
the renowned Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, CA.Part of his research with
the microscope revealed to him a specific state that the blood MUST be in for
cancer to develop. In his notes he made notation of a curiosity to him. He had
discovered that pork caused the specific state for cancer to develop and grow
very rapidly. Whenever a test subject consumed pork, their blood entered into
that specific state of the blood that he had discovered was necessary for
cancer to develop. The blood would maintain this state for up to nine hours
after ingestion of pork.Rife was not a religious man. He had no saving
faith. He didn't understand that pork was unclean and not to be consumed
according to the commandment of Scripture. He did learn from his own studies
NOT to consume pork due to scientific reasons!Here is another related
note I received more than five years ago:- Original Message -
From: "Dell N Griffin"Sent: 2/19/99 4:55 PMSubject: pork and
cancer
Shalom,
Thought I would forward this to you, re: what we discussed earlier
aboutthe BLOOD being the abode of the soul and why eating swine is
prohibitedby the Torah. Hope it doesn't spoil anyone's appetite.
Shabbat Shalom,Dell
FROM: "The Cancer Cure That Worked!" by Barry Lynes Quoting the
first page of Chapter 18:
Gruner was a Canadian cancer researcher who worked with Rife (inventor
ofthe Rife Machine). As he wrote to Dr. Milbank Johnson in the
late1930'', his contemporaries simply wouldn't look at what was before
theireyes. In the 1940's Gruner argued in essays and books (An
Interpretationof Cancer and the Study of Blood in Cancer) that
pleomorphism was aphenomenon in other diseases. Why, he asked, were
experts so reluctantto examine a similar biological process when it came
to cancer?
Gruner: "Viruses in the strict sense are mostly discredited where
canceris in question. However, the newer pleomorphists stand in
markedcontrast. The virus form, to them, is one phase in the life history
ofmany, if not all bacteria. The bacteria forms do not produce cancer,
butthe virus forms does. The existence of virus forms of typhoid
bacillus,colon bacillus, tubercle bacillus cannot seriously be disputed."
Gruner's specialty was blood. Rife had discovered that pork caused
thecancer micro-organism to grow very rapidly. In fact, Kendall's
KMeddium had a pork base. Gruner took this notion a step
further,producing a startling and frightening fact for people who eat
pork.Gruner wrote that the blood of a person who ate pork was the
SAME(emphasis in the original) as a cancer patient for 8 or 9 hours
aftereating.
Gruner: "a meal which features pork will produce a BLOOD
PICTUREINDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT OF CANCER,(emphasis in the original),
thoughof course normality reappears after 8 to 9 hours"
Unfortunately, the orthodox medical authorities and public
healthofficials have ignored this finding just as they have thoroughly
ignoredpleomorphisim.
END OF FIRST PAGE OF CHAPTER 18* * * * * * *
Now, I have a few FIRST EDITION copies of the book, 'The Cancer Cure That
Worked! Fifty Years of Suppression'. (I had extensive files on Rife before the
book was ever written in 1987 ... the STORIES that I could tell.) The reprints
on the internet run $10.95 on up. I'll let you have one of my First Editions
for just $10 + $3.85 postage.
Re: [TruthTalk] What about this William Penn, Quaker writing?
Blaine: Marlin, I have not been following your posts beyond a brief scan (for time's sake), but this took my attention. Now I have to ask you, is the below your belief, or is it that of your friends, the quakers? If theirs, how do you interpret it? True, or partly true, or what? - Original Message - From: Marlin Halverson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:54 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] What about this William Penn, Quaker writing? Dear participants on TruthTalk, I have the privelege of knowing some Quakers, some of my dearest freinds. They have done considerable study into the origins of their own faith. I asked them about what Chris Barr has said concerning Wiliam Penn's beliefs about "thetrinity,""oneness,"andPenn's other beliefs. Here is what they testify: - Original Message - Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:22 AM Subject: Re: What about this William Penn, Quaker writing? First of all, none but a handful of Quakers throughout history ever kept the Sabbath. I think today there are only two -- me and my wife. Second, William Penn, like all conservative Friends, did not hold to the trinity doctrine but believed that the Father God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has, and sent His son Jesus (Yeshua if you wish) to redeem mankind. Two distinct personalities. Two distinct persons (for lack of better terms) , one created by the other (in unknowable worlds before us) and one who calls the other "God." Ref John 20:17 No personage is given to the Spirit of God because it is a PART of God's makeup not God in whole. Jesus said in John 16:13-15, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."Clearly the Spirit is one of the things "God hath" or a power or manifestation of God but not wholly God Himself. The Spirit of God is the selfsame Spirit that is in you. God's Spirit -- in you -- just as it was in Christ. John 14:17-18, "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. I will not leave you comfortless: [Here Jesus equates the Spirit with Himself] I will come to you."William Penn's Writing falls short of the oneness doctrine as much as it does the trinity doctrine. In reality the writing is somewhat a "hedged bet" (if the Quaker brethren will forgive me). He said that he was opposed to using the TERM "trinity" because it was not a word from Scripture. He called it a Schoolmen's term. He actually goes on to say that he believes in the "three that bear record in heaven" not knowing that the 1st John 5:7 Scripture was of dubious origin, for it had not yet been discovered missing in earlier transcripts.No, on the trinity William Penn, though he is a hero of mine offers little ammunition to dispel the false doctrine. But he offers less to anyone claiming that Yeshua and Yahweh are one and the same.I've told you before that the Internet is a cesspool of cowards who get a false sense of accomplishment by arguing points using trite sayings, cut and paste arguments, and electronic gimmickry and whether they win or lose their argument they do so with people who have no commitment to true discovery. All of their life they will stare into the "dark glass" of their computers and never face to face with flesh and blood. The chat room is the platform of cowards and the showplace of ignorance. "Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: (Computers) but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face..." 2 John 1:12Let me share with you the Scripture that we chose as the theme for the feast -- it seems appropriate:"As much as you can aim to know your neighbors and consult with the wise, Let your conversation be with intelligent people, and let all of your discussion be about the Law of the Most High."Sirach 9:14-15Don
[TruthTalk] steakburger--better than . . .
Hey TTr's how about this site for delicious/nutritious eating!! look see for yourselves at . . . . http://www.steakburger.com/they_laughed.html
Re: [TruthTalk] steakburger--better than . . .
Izzy: The article came from meridianmagazine.com-- http://www.ldsmag.com/ lots of interesting articles there to peruse through. I eat whatever I eat, but ideally I would eat grass-fed beef if I could get it.(:) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:08 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] steakburger--better than . . . Blaine, I LOVE beef! Grass-fed sounds entirely superior, also. Do you raise or eat beef from this site? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blaine BorrowmanSent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:41 AMTo: TTSubject: [TruthTalk] steakburger--better than . . . Hey TTr's how about this site for delicious/nutritious eating!! look see for yourselves at . . . . http://www.steakburger.com/they_laughed.html
Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud
Well and good comments, Terry, but not everyone accepts the "givens" of religious belief as we do. Since the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are in one way or other tied up with the shroud, it is a critical evidence of the reality of the Savior's mission on the earth--not merely that he lived, died and was buried--which is accepted by most. The negative image on the shroud is believed by many scientists to have been caused by a burst of radiation, since it shows bone structure as well as surface image of the corpse. For instance, the left thumb of the manenwrapped in the shroudwas underneath the right hand, both being clasped together, yet the shroud image shows the bone structure of that hidden thumb. It shows bone structure throughout the body as well. Blaine - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud Blaine Borrowman wrote: New Date for Shroud of Turin Hey Blaine:Forgive my ignorance, but why the big deal over this cloth? Do we need proof that Jesus was buried?Isn't that a given?What am I missing?Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud
- Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud Blaine Borrowman wrote: Well and good comments, Terry, but not everyone accepts the "givens" of religious belief as we do. Since the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are in one way or other tied up with the shroud, it is a critical evidence of the reality of the Savior's mission on the earth--not merely that he lived, died and was buried--which is accepted by most. The negative image on the shroud is believed by many scientists to have been caused by a burst of radiation, since it shows bone structure as well as surface image of the corpse. For instance, the left thumb of the manenwrapped in the shroudwas underneath the right hand, both being clasped together, yet the shroud image shows the bone structure of that hidden thumb. It shows bone structure throughout the body as well. Blaine Terry wrote: I appreciate your response Blaine, but I am still lost. Would this prove that Jesus was radioactive? If so, would that prove He was the Messiah?Terry **Blainewrites: I am sorry you are still lost Terry, some of us do seem to get lost easily. (:) There is no doubt a lot of confusion in the world today, especially regarding what does or does not constitute proof. As far as proof is concerned,however,I don't see that the visibility of bone structure in the shroud image proves anything.For that matter, science and religion, especially religion, seldom prove anything. Would you agree with this? Judging from my observations, the best we usually get in science is support for a point of view, or theory--and with regards to religion,support for abelief. Those scientists who tout the radiation point of view apparently feel the visibility of bone structure on the Shroud of Turin supports their belief that the negative images came about as the body of Christ was being resurrected, the burst of radiation being part of the resurrection process. No proof of this, of course, just evidence that supports their belief system. If we want to believe something bad enough, we can always find support for it, right? Some, for example, want to believe grace without works is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, sothey find a few isolated passages to support this feel-good belief. Boys (of all ages) who want to have sex with their girlfriends, or view photos of naked women, find a few isolated passages in the Bible, or lack thereof, to support their desire to do these things, and then feel good about doing such.Same difference,I think, what do you think, brother Terry?
Re: [TruthTalk] Terry not blessed
Blaine: Oh, OK, I thought that might have been the case. Yes, the Brother of Jared, whose name was Mahonri Moriancumr. Joseph Smith gave the name out after the Book of Mormon was written, saying the name had a sacred meaning to the Jaredites, therefore was not included in the writings of the Gold Plates, but was revealed to Joseph Smith through divine answer to prayer. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry not blessed Oops! Jared's brother. Can you find that in your BoM? From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry not blessed Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:36:13 -0600 Blaine: Jacob's brother? I can't find this reference in my BoM, Perry. Please help? - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terry not blessed From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I just did something rather scary --- I typed Mormon but left out the second m If you ever see that IT WAS A TYPE-O ). Actually, John, there IS a character in the book of Mormon named Moron. See Ether 11:14ff. And of course, there is Moroni (plural of Moron? Italian for Moron?) Perhaps the use of Moron as a name was a practical joke JS wove into his novel called the Book of Mormon. And the book of Ether? He must have been running out of names. Then there is Jacob's brother...he has no name, but is referred to only as Jacob's brother, although he is quite a prominent character in the BoM. Perry _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ -- 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. _ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] new dating for Turin Shroud
New Date for Shroud of Turin New York Times International - Tuesday, Aug 3 1999An analysis of pollen grains and plant images taken from the Shroud of Turin, believed by millions of Christians to be the burial shroud of Jesus, places the cloth's origin in or near Jerusalem before the 8th century, scientists said. The finding contradicts an earlier study that concluded the cloth was most likely a Medieval forgery.Right: Professor Hall Dr. Tite at the 1989 carbon dating press conference. "95% confidence in Medieval dates posted." (photo: D. Telegraph) Tests trace Turin Shroud to Jerusalem before 700 AD - by William K Stevens St. Louis, Aug. 2 - An analysis of pollen grains and plant images taken from the Shroud of Turin, believed by many Christians to be the burial shroud of Jesus, places the cloth's origin in or near Jerusalem before the eighth century, scientists said here today. The finding appeared to contradict radiocarbon dating tests that in 1988 led a group of experts to put the origin of the cloth at between A.D. 1260 and 1390 and to conclude that the shroud was most likely a medieval forgery. But revisionist scholars have raised many doubts since then. The rectangular linen shroud, which bears faint traces of a man's face, is one of the most venerated objects in the Roman Catholic Church, although the Vatican, after the 1988 tests, said it appeared to be inauthentic. Avinoam Danin, a botanist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said at a news conference at the 16th International Botanical Congress here that flowers and other plant parts apparently were placed on the shroud, leaving pollen grains and imprints. Analysis of the grains and the images, he said, identified them as coming from species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the Jerusalem region. The pollen of one plant, a thistle called Gundelia tournefortii, was especially abundant on the cloth, and an image of the plant was identified near the image of the man's shoulder. Some scientists say this may have been the species from which Jesus's crown of thorns was plaited. Two pollen grains of this species were also found on another ancient fabric, called the Sudarium of Oviedo, which many believe to be the burial face cloth of Jesus. A first century origin for the face cloth has been documented, the scientists here said, and it has been in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the eighth century. The shroud has been kept in Turin, Italy, since 1578. Both the Sudarium and the shroud appear to carry type AB blood stains, and the stains are in a similar pattern, Dr. Danin said. "There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be sychronic, covering the same body," he said. "The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the shroud originated before the eighth century." He did not offer a more specific date. Dr. Danin noted that the 1988 analysis was performed on a small corner of the cloth, while the new one involves the whole shroud and compares with a cloth known to exist before the eighth century. The sample may have been contaminated, said Alan D. Whanger, of the Duke University Medical Center. The sample came from a water stained, scorched edge of the shroud, he said, and carbon could have been added to the cloth, obscuring the true date of its origin. Also, living fungi and bacteria have been found growing inside the fibers, he said, possibly contaminating the sample.
Re: [TruthTalk] Passion of the Christ R Rating Article is by Tim Stevenson
Blaine: The Shroud of Turin indicates the man whose negative image is shown on the Shroud received over 100 stripes with the scourge.Whoever's image is on the shroud was apparently almost beaten to death. Perhaps Mel Gibson's portrayal of the bloody beating of Christ was not so much overdone after all... - Original Message - From: Marlin Halverson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 11:26 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Passion of the Christ "R" Rating Article is by Tim Stevenson I wanted to find out who wrote the clever article about the R rating of the Passion. I found this source over the Internet and Tim Stevenson claims authorship. - Original Message - From: Tim Stevenson To: Marlin Halverson Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 10:44 AM Subject: RE: Passion of the Christ "R" Rating Article Yes I am. Tim Stevenson -Original Message-From: Marlin Halverson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:20 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Passion of the Christ "R" Rating Article Are you the author of the following? The movie - the PASSION OF CHRIST is rated "R":The "R" of course is because of the violence, the gore.. In movie terms "R" stands for RESTRICTED , but in this movie"R" stands for RELEVANT , for REALISTIC , for itREALLY happened for a REASON because we wereREBELIOUS we needed a REDEEMER , we needed to beRECONCILED , we needed to be RECOVERED , we neededto be REGENERATED . Jesus needed to be REJECTED sothat we could have a RELATIONSHIP not just aRELIGION . The "R" is to REMIND us to REMEMBERwhat Jesus did to REMOVE our sin to RENDER Satanpowerless, to RESCUE us from eternity in hell. The "R" rating isto show that Jesus was RESPONSIBLE for giving youREST . As a RESULT of his death Jesus RETIRED yourdebt. The "R" rating means that some will be REPULSED ,some will REFUSE to believe, some will be RELUCTANT ,.
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
You see everything through dark glasses, Perry, sorry I can't help you. Blaine - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:25 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine: . . . And the 43rd, and the 44th, and etc. Sounds like he was inscribing on metal and decided to skip a few years for brevity's sake--ever tried inscribing on metal plates using primitive tools? I haven't either, but it sounds like a task and a half. I am sure JS doesn't need your thin excuse to cover his mistake. Let's face it, JS just could'nt count. There are many more sensible ways he could have abbreviated the sequence of years if that was his goal. He just could not count. Actually, this is just another instance of solid evidence that the Book of Mormon was written as described in the book--on metal plates, slowly and painfully. There is a lot of solid evidence for evolution, too. But it has never been proven. Come up with all of the possibilities you want, Blaine, regardless of how unlikely they are. I want proof...not a bag of unlikely possibiliteis. How is that even evidence? It now appears that you are inventing evidence out of nothing! We should add this to the growing list of truths It is a mistake, then you make it evidence, now it is truth. This is what I call the Mormon Side Step. Here it is in action, from mistake to truth in three easy steps. that the Book of Mormon is true--Nahom, barley, concrete, etc. which ,when put together begin to hint at a more comprehensive truth. All truth is related, and can eventually be put together to form an interconnected circle of truth. That is what is happening, Perry, and may I suggest you start looking at the forest instead of focusing on each individual tree. Thanks for pointing it out, Perry! As I have said, I do have some more trees for you--when I get time, I will tell you about them. Perry _ Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp -- 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] Re:Dialogue with Mormons
Blaine: I concur with Dave's eloquent message--and as he says, I consider all to be my brothers and sisters--let judgement be made byHim whose right it is to judge. "DC 82:23 "leave judgement alone with Me, for it is mine and I will repay." - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with Mormons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2004 8:10:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't want to speak for Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand fellowship quite the same way you do though. Good post. And thanks for not taking offense. I am afraid I did speak for Blaine. Probably a mistake. Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It was part of the routine of the first church (Acts 2:42). My experience with the Mormon church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood than divine genetics? DAVEH: Perhaps you (representing Protestants in general) do not understand the LDS concept of brotherhood. From what I see in TT, brothers in Christ are those who share a common salvational perspective. IOW.If one perceives he is saved by Jesus, he is bonded to others who profess similarly to the exclusion of those who do not perceive themselves to be saved.such as those non Christians or LDS folks like myself. OTOH.From the LDS perspective, we all are brothers in that we were spirit children (pre-mortal earth life) of heavenly parents, and despite out differences of beliefs we still maintain that pre-mortal heritage of being literal children of God. That even applies to those who stray from the paths of righteousness or belief. Just as Jesus was out spirit brother in the pre-mortal existence, so was Lucifer. However, though we share a common root of existence with reprehensible beings devoted to fighting against the Lord and the plan of salvation, we recognize how they came to be and what effect they have on their own progression, and that of ourselves. Somewhere between the extremes of Jesus and Lucifer, we have a whole spectrum of spirit creations who conform to the Lord's will in some measure. While some (such as the despots of the world) fall toward the lower end of the scale, others (perhaps some of the noble prophets of the Bible like David or Moses) may be at the upper end of the same scale. Somewhere in between, lay most of the rest of us. Though one may be closer to God (in terms of trodding on the path back to heaven) than another, we always have hope the Prodigal Son will return. Did the PS gain his fellowship with his blood relatives ONLY AFTER his repentance? Or did he always share a brotherhood with his family, even when slopping the hogs? I feel it is the same with us..Even when a (spirit) brother has departed from the ways of the Lord, and may even kick against the prickswe still share a common root in that both he and I (and you, John) were spirit creations of God. And, I simply don't feel comfortable condemning as bad something God created. There will come a time when judgment will pass on all of us, and I'll be happy to let the Lord do the judging of my fellow brothers. Until then, I'll just assume we are all brothers and try to treat my brethren (whether LDS or not) as part of my eternal family. Now don't misunderstand.IF the Lord gives one of my brothers the boot (as he did Lucifer) out of heaven, I will not only feel badly for that spirit creation that failed to measure up, but I will consider him a lost cause. For those who remained in heaven and became mortal, I will simply consider lost sheep who need a shepherd and may hopefully someday return to the fold. So John..Though I may believe many of the doctrines you may have adopted are in error, I don't see why that should keep us from some form of fellowship. However, I think many
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine: . . . And the 43rd, and etc. Sounds like he was inscribing on metal and decided to skip a few years for brevity's sake--ever tried inscribing on metal plates using primitive tools? I haven't either, but it sounds like a task and a half. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:31:55 -0800 (PST)And why does 4 Nephi 1:6 say, "And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away." Notice also that the country bumpkin who wrotethat passagecould not count...he left out the 40th and 50th years...I guess they did not pass away. Perry MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! -- "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] false notions
Blaine: Dave is handing it to you straight, Perry, and frankly, I am getting a little annoyed that you insist you "know" we believe something we do not. Why don't you get off it, Perry, we have been through this before, Dave told you that--and like he said, are you saying we are liars? I have not read allthe posts, but neither have I seen you answer this question--nor have I seen answers to several other questions that have been asked of you. You two do more ignoring than anyone, then accuse us of doing the same. Wake up and take the beam out of your own eye, then you may see more clearly to remove the mote in Dave's eye and/or my eye. If you want to worship Kevin and believe Kevin "knows" something we do not, please be my guest. But Dave has eloquently stated what we believe--Mary was a virgin, and the Holy Ghost was the power in God's handsthat created the Son of God. That is pure Mormon doctrine--no other doctrine is EVER preached or taught in ANY Mormon chapel or hall. What you and Kevin are both very good at issetting up little straw men, toppling them one by one, then patting each other on the back and saying, in chorus, "What a good boy am I!" - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] false notions Charles Perry Locke wrote: David, you are denying what several of your own prophets have stated.DAVEH: No, Perry. I am denying the spin you are putting on their words. Have you not seen the multitude of references that Kevin has provided that indicate such?DAVEH: No.I have not. The references I have seen have not said God had physical sex with Mary. So I do not understand why you continue saying that we do believe that, despite me telling you previously that it is not LDS doctrine or teaching. Are you saying that they were NOT prophets, and had no authority, or were they wrong on just this one occasion?DAVEH: Please quote the passage you think applies and I'll explain it as I understand it. Please set me straight. Explain to me the DH understanding of the relationship between the LDS god and Mary that produced Jesus' earthly body. If it differs from the LDS teachings, please tell me what the LDS believe about this. DAVEH: OK Perry.once again FTR..LDS doctrine is very specific about Mary.She was a virgin. Furthermore, I do believe God the Father is Jesus' literal father. Do you not believe both those concepts, Perry? I also believe there is a genetic (if that is the correct word) connection between God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus that took place by virtue of the power of the Holy Ghost. That does not mean that the HG created Jesus. But rather Jesus was conceived in the womb from genetic (as best as I understand it) material of both the Heavenly Father and Mary without a physical/sexual union that would disqualify Mary's virginity. Now that you presumably understand what I just explained, Perry.will you continue expounding that we believe the opposite? Perry From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:04:33 -0800 DAVEH: Interestingly.Perry you have once again quoted /He had physical sex with Mary/ which I have several times denied to be LDS doctrine on TT. Why do you make such a claim when you know it to be false? Did you think I lied to you? Blaine Borrowman wrote: *Blaine: I have covered all of the doctrines I know about that can be substantiated by Mormon scriptures, at least I hope I didn't leave anything out. Your list of "truths" about what we believe, Perry, would not stand up to any scriptures that I know of, Mormon or otherwise. You are touching on almost all the doctrines I have heard repeated by anti-Mormons in their many attempts to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They dig up some obscure commentaries made in moments of unwary speculation, and try to attach these to the official belief system of the LDS Church. If I as a sunday school teacher were to dwell on these doctrines as if they were fundamental truths, with more than passing commentary, I would soon be removed from teaching the Latter-day Saint people. If you want to know what we teach, read current commentary by current LDS writers, or go to the official scriptures--the BoM, the DC, and etc. * *If I wanted to know what Jews teach, would I go to an anti-semitic source? Not unless I wanted to hear with itching ears the devil's version of what they teach.* *(:)* - Original
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine: addendum--in blue, scroll down-- - Original Message - From: Blaine Borrowman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Blaine: . . . And the 43rd, and the 44th, and etc. Sounds like he was inscribing on metal and decided to skip a few years for brevity's sake--ever tried inscribing on metal plates using primitive tools? I haven't either, but it sounds like a task and a half. Actually, this is just another instance of solid evidence that the Book of Mormon was written as described in the book--on metal plates, slowly and painfully. We should add this to the growing list of truthsthat the Book of Mormon is true--Nahom, barley, concrete, etc. which ,when put togetherbegin to hint ata more comprehensive truth. All truth is related,and can eventually be put together to form an interconnected circle of truth.That is what is happening, Perry, and may I suggest you start looking at the forest instead of focusing on each individual tree. Thanks for pointing it out, Perry! As I have said, I do have some more trees for you--when I get time, I will tell you about them. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:31:55 -0800 (PST)And why does 4 Nephi 1:6 say, "And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away." Notice also that the country bumpkin who wrotethat passagecould not count...he left out the 40th and 50th years...I guess they did not pass away. Perry MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! -- "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] Re:JESUS AT LDS TEACHING AT YOU
? Blaine - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:17 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:JESUS AT LDS TEACHING AT YOU AT (According To): What is the historic teaching on Who Jesus is and was (Please cite primary sources) Wherein do you agree with this and wherein do you disagree? Lancenglory.org Sent: March 28, 2004 17:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they have heard someone say. Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup. So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, please tell me your reasoning--but withold your biases, as I am not interested in noisy nonsense or insultingword-offal. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
cactus buds, plantain, mesquite beans and agave from the wild desert. Maize kernels recovered from Hohokam dwelling sites have been dated to 300 B.C., or the time of the earliest Hohokam settlements." More on this subject can be found at: http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/westweb/ancient/hohokam/farming.html Blaine is this where you get your FACTS from FAIR?http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/anach2.pdf Blaine: I have a book titled Reexploring the book of Mormon, edited by John Welch. It has FARMS research in it. See you at conference! Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine,I offered the challenge a week or so ago:"If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands."That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only.PerryFrom: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of americaDate: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:40 -0700Blaine: Sorry, but I got so far behind, I started deleting posts without reading them--it was the only way I could catch up and get current. (:) I even deleted DavidM's posts, which I am usually careful to read, so don't ! amp;! gt;take it personally. In fact, I unsubscribed for a couple of days while I was gone to Richfield to take my son there for a job. But thanks for letting me know the challenge is there--who put it there?Just to remind you--maybe you didn't read it, or you dismissed it as being unimportant--I have already posted on the discovery of barley in the Americas before Columbus' time. The December 1983 issue of the Science 83 reported the discovery in Phoenix, Arizona by professional archaeologists. Prior to its discovery, barley was thought to be an old world crop only, and was widely used by anti-BoM advocates as proof the BoM was a fake.It is of fundamental importance, since barley has long been associated with the law of Moses as a wave offering during the Passover, which is held during Abib, the first month mentioned in the Bible, which means "the greening," referring ! to the g! reening of the barley crop in the early Spring. This crop was planted in the fall as a dry crop. It depended on Spring moisture to bring it up early, and was the first of the grain crops to show maturity. When it was used as a wave offering, it signified Jesus having barely attained maturity (age 33) when he was crucified. The same with the Pascal lamb, which was to be a lamb or goat of the FIRST YEAR.For Lehi and his group to have left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. without barley would have seriously compromised BoM credibility. The BoM references to barley are found in:Mosiah 7:22"and one half of our corn, and our BARLEY, and even all our grain of every kind."Mosiah, 9:9"And we began to till the ground with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of BARLEY, . . .Alma 11:7"A senum of silver was equal to a! senine ! of gold, and either for a measure of BARLEY, and also for a measure for every kind of grain."Alma 11:15"A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of BARLEY."- Original Message -From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:43 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Blaine, Just a reminder that there is a challenge on the table for you to present one provable, or proven, fact from the BoM that did not come from the Bible. Maybe you have not gotten to it yet in your catching up on TT posts. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-! To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:19:54 -0700Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin-- sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES wh
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Blaine: The splinter groups have mostly gone away--only a few of them remain, and as is evident with the somewhat numerous fundamentalists down on the Utah-Arizona border, they are falling aprt, too. Warren Jeffs, the "spiritual leader," seems to be better described as a despotic lunatic whose only ambition is to bilk the members out of an increasing % of their incomes, for what he calles a "tithe," which by the way he retains full control over. He likes playing God, I guess, but I don't see that it will last forever. Sooner or later, his victims will see the light.In fact, many already have, which is the reason they are having so much trouble. On the other hand, the true LDS Church seems to be growing stronger as it laysit's sure foundation in Jesus Christ. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. But they consider you (LDS) the dead trunk that has departed from the faith. They all say they have the True Restored Gospel. Who is right? The caucaphony from all these splinter groups makes it so hard to tell which divergant path is the true restoration.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: That's easy Kevin--the splinter groups are not accepted by the Church of JC of LDS as just another living branch broken off the main olive tree, as is the case when breaks occur from Protestant churches. If a branch breaks off the LDS main trunk, it is considered a dead branch, and no longer part of the true church. Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:46 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. With over 200 LDS Splinter groups claiming to be a "restoration" and followers of JoE Smith, how does this equate to ONE faith?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine wrote: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture?At least as good as Mormonism, eh? LOL.Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] false notions
Blaine: I have covered all of the doctrines I know about that can be substantiated by Mormon scriptures, at least I hope I didn't leave anything out. Your list of "truths" about what we believe, Perry, would not stand up to any scriptures that I know of, Mormon or otherwise. You are touching on almost all the doctrines I have heard repeated by anti-Mormons in their many attempts to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They dig up some obscure commentaries made in moments of unwary speculation, and try to attach these to the official belief system of the LDS Church. If I as a sunday school teacher were to dwell on these doctrines as if they were fundamental truths,with more than passing commentary, I would soon be removed from teaching the Latter-day Saint people. If you want to know what we teach, read current commentary by current LDS writers, or go to the official scriptures--the BoM, the DC, and etc. If I wanted to know what Jews teach, would I go to an anti-semitic source? Not unless I wanted to hear with itching ears the devil's version of what they teach. (:) - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] false notions Blaine, Great! You caovered the parts that are similariities between you god and jesus, and the God and Jesus of the Bible. Now tell the WHOLE story, Blaine... give the "other" aspects of God from your own DC, and the writings of your other LDS prophets which you ALSO believe. It is THOSE characterisitcs that make your god and jesus different from the biblical God and Jesus. Please don't hold anything back. He is from KOLOB. He was once a MAN. He had a father himself that was once a man, and is now a god. He had physical sex with Mary. There are infinite such gods. Jesus is a brother of SATAN. Be truthful, Blaine. Tell us all of it. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "TT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] false notions Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:26:04 -0700 I would like to try once again to clarify my (Mormon) beliefs as to who Jesus really is. If needed, I can verify all of these assertions by biblical scripture. He is as follows: 1) The God of the Old Testament--Jehovah--he was the "I Am that I Am" that gave commandments to Moses, and delivered the Children of Israel out of Egypt. 2) He was the firstborn of all spirit creations OF the Father. (Rev 3:14) 3) All other things were created BY him (but OF the father). 4) He is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. 5) He gave his life and blood to atone for the sins of all, as he overcame all things, including death. 6) He was the firstborn of the resurrection, having pre-eminance in all things. 7) He now reigns on the right hand of the Father (both in bodies of flesh and bone) and caringly intervenes in the affairs of men, by speaking to his ordained and authorized servants, the prophets. 8) He will again set his foot on the earth, which is his footstool, and will reign forever as King and Prince over all, in justice and equity, and his Kingdom will never end. I can't see that any of these beliefs make my Jesus different from your Jesus--unless you don't believe your own scriptures. Blaine _ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-uspage=hotmail/es2ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ -- "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] Men's Doctrines
Blaine: "Greater love hath no man than this--that he give his life for his friends. You are my friends if you Keep My Commandments." I did not bother to look this scripture up, what I have written I wrote from memory. It is basically accurate, andit is a fundamental truth. You will only be saved if you are willing to keep his commandments--although works alone will not save you,through both works ANDhis saving grace--his mercy--one MAY repent and start from scratch, and thereby be saved. Otherwise, the justice of God will bind you to your sins, and you will have to pay for them yourself before you may come out from that prison ruled over by Satan. Jesus alone has the keys to that prison, and only he stands at the gate to Heaven--he employs no servant there. He will not let just anybody through, for strait is the gate, and narrow the way, and FEW there be that find it. This scripture tells us not everyone that saith "Lord, Lord," will be admitted--just a "few." - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Men's Doctrines In a message dated 3/29/2004 6:10:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is grace verses works, whether Mormon, Baptist, Catholic or whatever. **Red flag; doctrine of men. Grace is no covering for sin and it is only accessed by faith...(Romans 5:2) and faith is dead without corresponding actions (Jame 2:17) Just for the record, Blaine -- God's grace even saves a works-salvantionist. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. A works-salvationist would say "Well, duh." As one who is aware of his/her continued sinful self (Romans 3:23, IJo 1:8 etc), this statement "Christ died for us while we yet sinners" must have some relevance other than the obvious -- I mean all sacrifice for sin is created for those who are "yet sinners." What is significant about this statement is the fact that the sacrifice is once and for all time -- that the flow of the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO MORE. The problem for the sinner is not sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His solution. The problem is already solved. That is why the gentile (Romans 2) who has no knowledge of God or Christ but does by nature the things of the law can be saved -- because the sacrifice was made "while we were yet sinners." Does that make sense to you, Blaine? And, are we on the same page on this? John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] false notions
Blaine: Kolob is a ruling planet that lies near the vicinity of God's abode--it takes 1000 earth years to make one revolution--it was never touted in any Mormon scripture as being God's actual place of residence. This is just another of Kevin's MANY misapprehensions (purposeful?)of Mormon doctrine-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] false notions In a message dated 3/29/2004 7:46:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He is from KOLOBIs this anywhere close to Compton? Preach on. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Alpha Omega
Blaine: How about "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, and FEW there be that find it." (:) The above is "Christian" doctrine. What you have written is Protestant tradition. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Alpha Omega From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]From the first to the last word (in the Bible). The Incarnation excludes nobody. Lance jt: What about Rev 22:15? Looks to me like it excludes "dogs (people outside the covenant)and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,and whoever loveth and maketh a lie" They're all OUTSIDE the gate anyway
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they have heard someone say. Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup. So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, please tell me your reasoning--but withold your biases, as I am not interested in noisy nonsense or insultingword-offal. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] astrology
Izzie,
Yes, Astology is definitely an occult oriented
skill, or art. It is not yet a science, but does require quite a bit of
math and conceptual understanding to get much out of. I haven't figured
out what the relationship between Chinese Astrolgy and Babylonian Astrology is,
but both seem to have some validity. (:)
I would guess that being both a Mormon and an
astrologer on TTissimilar tobeing both a Catholic and a Black
in Salt Lake City, at least prior to when the brethren received the
revelation toallow Blacks to hold the Holy Priesthood.
(:)
Since Karl Malone was the mainstay of the
Utah Jazz NBA team, Blacks seem to have been more easily accepted in Utah.
The NBA has done a lot for Blacks all over the USA, too, I think, to raise their
status and standing in communities. The NBA is not all bad--as is the case
with almost anything we usually think of as being bad or evil. As I
recall, one of the concepts I learned in Sociology classes was that the more
minorities interact with the majority population, the more biases and
predjudices disappear. The NBA does seem to giveBlacks more
exposure. God, who loves us all, Black or White, works in mysterious ways
his wonders to perform, I guess you could say.
You should come to Salt Lake City for a
visit sometime, and I would be happy to show you around thecity, which by
the way is only abput 1/2 Mormon. I live North of Salt Lake City, in
West Point, a small city near Ogden and Hill AFB. But Salt Lake is just 30
minutes away.
Blaine
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:48
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] astrology
Blaine, I
believe that astrology is of the occult. Do you?
I do think you have a valid
point, however, that God made the heavenlies, and He can use them to give
signs, such as the Zodiac formations. Pastor James Kennedy did a big series on
that subject (and took severe criticism from the Church of the Rigid and
Uptight Believers for it, too.) How does the astrology that you believe in
differ from the Chinese horoscope? How can both of you be right? Isnt it bad
enough to be a mormon, AND an astrologist? J
Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Blaine
BorrowmanSent: Sunday, March
28, 2004 12:11 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
astrology
Blaine: The
stars fortell, but do not compel. God Knows us, and what choices we will
make, but we need to make them nevertheless, and thus prove all things, in
order that God may alone be glorified. There is no evil in reading the
stars, but only evil in thinking they compel us. We are indeed free by
way of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the sure
foundation.
Few if any men
nowadays can accurately read the stars well enough to be certain what is
written there. Inspiration is needed, and if that fails, then we are
left unto ourselves. The Magi were not just astrologers, but wise and
holy men of God, who listened to the promptings of the spirit, which is the
only real key to reading the
stars.
ALL things
testify of Christ--even the stars. Take Venus, the bright and morning
star at times, but the evening star at other times. Sometimes it
is neither, as it cannot be seen because it has moved behind the sun.
It signifies the
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as it moves from being the
evening star, to being unseen, to being "born again" as the morning
star. As Jesus said, "I am the offspring of David and the bright and
morning star." (Rev 22:16
Also, look up some
evening and see the Big Dipper--it has seven stars in it, and they all point
to the fixed star, called the North Star. As the earth turns on its
axis, the Big Dipper appears to revolve around the North Star,which
itselfnever appears to move. The seven stars signify the seven
churchesof Asia (Revelation, chapter
1), or, in other words, the Church! The North Star, which never
moves, signifies Jesus Christ.
- Original Message
-
From: Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
March 26, 2004 7:50 PM
Subject:
[TruthTalk] astrology
From: "Blaine
Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmm, can you give me your exact
time and place of birth?
I can't predict much without
being able to place your sun, moon and
planets
in houses with reference to your
rising sign.You were born with the Sun in
Saggitarius, Moon in Taurus,
Mercury and Venus in Capricornus, Mars in Aquarius,
Jupiter in Pices, and Saturn in
Libra.
You might want to consult
astrology books on those placements yourself.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Izzy, Yes, I am aware of your perceptions, have been for a long time--how could I miss it? LOL But you are wrong. The big surprise was all mine, though. I never figured you were receiving messages from the "imitator," as you call him, just didn't think you received anything at all.(:) I should have looked at my own scriptures, which tell me that ALL men are inspired by the Holy Spirit from time to time. Hey, I am just like you, believe me!! There have been times when these "whisperings" have saved my job, or I earned needed extra money. I was even prompted by the spirit to take a piece of a jigsaw puzzle to a service station that was offering a free lawn mower if you could finish out the puzzle. The piece I had fit. I got the lawnmower--just in the nick of time, because my landlord was about to kick me out of my house for not taking care of the lawn. Blaine - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:50 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Because I dont think the same voice speaks to you that speaks to me. Theres the voice of the Holy Spirit, and theres the voice of the Imitator. Guess you know who I think speaks to mormons. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blaine BorrowmanSent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 12:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Why scary? B - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Very scary, Blaine. Iz Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Blaine: Perry, thank you for always being willing to lower the ladder for me, that I might climb up where you presume to be.If nothing else, your heart is in the right place. We Mormons do have some doctrines that are foreign to your old system of thought, but they came from God.If you cannot accept Jesus as being a dynamic, caring, intervening God, fully capable of taking the reins and directing his church directly and through his chosen prophets, then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Correct me if I am wrong, but to me you seem to insist he is a standpat, gagged and hogtied god who can do nothing new. Sorry, but I cannot accept that. Take care, old buddy, and keep in touch, as we never know when the right teachable moments in our lives will be. (:) - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Blaine wrote: So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, please tell me your reasoning--but withold your biases, as I am not interested in noisy nonsense or insulting word-offal. Blaine, Blaine, Blaine. I have been over this several times on TT. Since you worship a DIFFERENT Jesus and a DIFFERENT God than the Jesus and God of the Bible, then you are not a Christian. I have given a fairly involved explanation in posts a few months back of how I know that the LDS God and Jesus are not the Biblical God and Jesus. Perry From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:16:03 -0700 Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they have heard someone say. Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson _ All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn -- 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] POLYANYI
Blaine: Oh yes, I must apologize for not answering your questions, John. Thanks for the reminder. Well, of course we are brothers!! We are all children of God, are we not? I see no way to consider you as anything but a brother who worships Jesus Christ. Your beliefs may not always coincide with mine, but obviously we both basically are true belivers, are we not? I can see you are a true believer, and I deem myself to be the same. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI In a message dated 3/28/2004 7:17:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blaine Borrowman) Blaine. Was it Lance who was saying that your Christ is different from my Christ? I believe you said that you believed in Christ so that made you a Christian and then you asked for some impute. I am saying, if your Christ is the same God I serve, are the two of us brothers? I am not trying to challenge you. Rather, I am curious. Or is there more to your sense of brotherhood than meets the eye? John
Re: [TruthTalk] astrology
Blaine: The stars fortell, but do not compel. God Knows us, and what choices we will make, but we need to make them nevertheless, and thus prove all things, in order that God may alone be glorified. There is no evil in reading the stars, but only evil in thinking they compel us. We are indeed free by way of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the sure foundation. Few if any men nowadays can accurately read the stars well enough to be certain what is written there. Inspiration is needed, and if that fails, then we are left unto ourselves. The Magi were not just astrologers, but wise and holy men of God, who listened to the promptings of the spirit, which is the only real key to reading the stars. ALL things testify of Christ--even the stars. Take Venus, the bright and morning star at times, but the evening star at other times. Sometimes it is neither, as it cannot be seen because it has moved behind the sun. It signifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as it moves from being the evening star, to being unseen, to being "born again" as the morning star. As Jesus said, "I am the offspring of David and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16 Also, look up some evening and see the Big Dipper--it has seven stars in it, and they all point to the fixed star, called the North Star. As the earth turns on its axis, the Big Dipper appears to revolve around the North Star,which itselfnever appears to move. The seven stars signify the seven churchesof Asia (Revelation, chapter 1), or, in other words, the Church! The North Star, which never moves, signifies Jesus Christ. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:50 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] astrology From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm, can you give me your exact time and place of birth? I can't predict much without being able to place your sun, moon and planets in houses with reference to your rising sign.You were born with the Sun in Saggitarius, Moon in Taurus, Mercury and Venus in Capricornus, Mars in Aquarius, Jupiter in Pices, and Saturn in Libra. You might want to consult astrology books on those placements yourself. The problem with astrolgy nowadays is that ithas no central school or authority, much like thetraditional Christian religion. jt: Of course it does. Astrology is part of the lie and it's central authority is the father of lies. Christianity's authority is the Lord Jesus Christ who is presently seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. This means anyone who wants can presume to be an authority on the subject-- even worse, there is no "Bible" or Book of Mormon to go to for settling disagreements. I personally believe in ancient times it may have been a real science, at least in sense that it used math and only pretty smart men were able to read it. jt: Must have been "deceived" smart men. Let's face it, the astrologers or wise men from the East in Christ's time were able to employ it to locate the Lord's place and time of birth. There is evidence the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used it, and taught it to their children jt: Where do you find this evidence? I've studied scripture for a long time and all I've ever seen is God's warnings and cautions against it. It's a good way to inherit the curse rather than blessing. How did it get started? It's actual origins seem to have been lost in the dim past. It may have originally been given to man as a revelation from God, but has obviously become corrupted, and consequently today is looked upon as a despicable psuedo-science. jt: It is idolatrous and heretical with men looking to the creation for answers rather than to the Creator. Also it locks people into certain personality traits - when God sent His own Son (before the foundation of the worlds) to make them free. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Why scary? B - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Very scary, Blaine. Iz Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics
Blaine: Who is John Smithson? He sure seems to be on top of it. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:58 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics John, What is your sons specialty? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics In a message dated 3/26/2004 6:18:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My dear husband is in academic medicine. He (1) teaches residents at the university the facts he was taught in medical training, (2) he teaches residents the things he has learned by the experience of putting those facts into practice and (3) he does his own personal research to learn new facts, which he can publish and teach others in the future. May we all reach the research stage spiritually, where we actually receive new information from the Lord directly. But we can get bogged down, and stuck, at any stage along the way. Most never get beyond stage one. The reasons why are another post entirely. The short answer is unrepented sin. Izzy My son, my middle son, is just starting his residency. He went to S.F. He is now on Mount Everest doing a study on altitude sickness. Perhaps your husband could give him some direction when he returns from the mountain. John Smithson Izzy -- people like judyt mean well. She is doing the best she can do with her existing assumptions, education, limitations (we all have them) and the like. Her approach is as valuable as Bill's or Miller's or whoever. When she educates, the value is obvious. When she confronts, the value is found in a determined study to overcome her bias (we all have bias) This list is not a church -- thank God. In a church setting, none of us would be allowed to have these discussions. There is NO freedom within the limitations of the church. I attend church, but not for the purpose of learning more about God. I am there to be revisited by His Spirit and affirmed in my faith. That is more important to me, on the occasion that I attend, than the 8,331st sermon on John 3:16, if you get my drift. You stay within the list offers yet another point of view. I firmly believe that judyt gets a great deal out of belonging to the group that we might credit. Hang in there , A pen pal John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Glad you are back! I was beginning to worry you had hung up on us. Blaine - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america David Miller wrote: Perry wrote: "If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands." That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only. I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for? You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to understand the nature of the proof you seek. It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this approach? DAVEH: Hope you don't mind me interjecting a thought here, DavidM. (I just returned and am now sorting through 1306 emails...Wish I had unsubscribed like Blaine does when he leaves town!) Anyway..Would you suggest unbelievers use your test (to show one falsehood) as a way to determine whether one should believe the Bible to be true or false? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Party Crashing
As I said before, Judy often shows more true Christian spirit than most. She at least tries, huh? I like Judy, even though I have to admit she is, as Izzy said, "contentious!!" LOL - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 7:27 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Party Crashing jt: I was not addressing you Izzy - this time you are interjecting yourself into a response I wrote to Blaine andpartof your post was needful for clarification. I'm not angry with you so the animosity is one sided. I'm not being rude or mean but it isgood for one to practice what they preach. judyt From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once again, Judy, I would appreciate it if you would stop interjecting yourself into conversations I am having with other people. You are rudely interrupting at the party again. Surely you understand English, so please honor my request. Thank you again. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:37 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Everyone has stuff that "just comes to them" - where it comes from is the question. This is why believers should have spiritual discernment. There are lots of spirits talking all the time. jt Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL And how would you define relationship with the Lord? Occasionally, during my running daily conversations/mental mullings with the Lord as Im going through whatever work I am doing, I am startled by an awareness of Him distinctly answering my question. I know the answer came from Him, because it is a thought that I know did not originate with me. It is always a surprising thought because of this. This never ceases to amaze me. I think this is just one example of being in relationship with Him. He is really there. He really interacts with you. And you are aware of it. Awesome! Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:23 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Blaine wrote: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture? At least as good as Mormonism, eh? LOL. Blaine: The way I see it, there is a fundamental error in making the comparison you are making in your above comment.The problem seems to be that modern Christianity comes across (at least to me) as aconglomerate of mostly Protestant religions lumped together to form an entity known as "the Church," which seems to have several disparate and often contradictory doctrines, as well as a degree of commonconsensus centeredupon grace by Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Mormonism as seen by Mormons is one church only--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Within the framwork of that church, there is a high degree of doctrinal agreement--so much so that it is difficult if not impossible to find disagreement on basic issues such as faith, the nature of God, the relationship of man to God, baptism, priesthood authority, what constitutes scripture or the word of God, fixed prayers, even individual prayer patterns. When disagreement does occur, those who insist on teaching the doctrines upon which consensus does not exist are either asked to repent, or are cut off from membership. Once disfellowshipped, although they may still consider themselves to represent Mormonism, they actually do not do so in the eyes of the church. Breakoffs from the Church of JC of LDS broke off from the main tree, so to speak, and therefore became dead branches. If the same were to happen in Protestanism, the newly formed branch with one or two (or more) dissenting ideas would still be considered alive and well and still a part of "the Church." Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] Blaines Lost sheep of america
For many reasons, the evidence (archaeological and otherwise) for the existence of Book of Mormon places, languages, etc is not as easy to find as is the casewith the Bible.In other words,everyone knows where Jerusalem of the Bible was and is at, few think they know where Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon was at, although there is ongoing research along these lines and several researchers are confident they have located many places named in the Book of Mormon. An exception to this barren landscape is the place called Nahom, mentioned in 1 Nephi 16:34: "Ishmael died, and was buried in a place which was called Nahom." Nahom has been foundIn Lehi's travels through the Saudi Arabian peninsula, he names many locations (Laman, Lemuel, etc). One location, however, seems to already have a place name: Nahom. It is the location where Ishmael is buried and his daughters mourn for him. According to Nephi's description of their travels, this Nahom is located somewhere in southwestern Arabian peninsula. And sure enough, This year (2000) it was announced that an altar was found with the name, "Nahom" on it! It dates back to Lehi's time (600 BC), and it is in the location Nephi described. Such information was not available in Joseph Smith's day. In fact, this area has only been researched in the last few years. For more info on it, see: Gregory Witt's Lehi's Trail website In answer to DaveM's question, " Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this approach?" I have to answer that since, as DaveM has himself stated, " Math is strictlydeductive (isn't it?) meaning that its conclusions are known to be truewith certainty whereas science and objective theology uses inductiveinference and its conclusions are tentative." I would have to say I doubt I would see any "proof" as being final. However, you are welcome to present such evidence as you feel might be conclusive. Shalom, peace, Blaine - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:23 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Perry wrote: "If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands." That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only. I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for? You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to understand the nature of the proof you seek. It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this approach? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine: The recent (2000) discovery of the place Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula is strong evidence that the BoM is not a work of fiction.See previous post. Also,the BoMis consistent with known modes of thought, writing techniques, etc., used in ancient times. If it were a work of fiction, it would not have these consistencies at all, or very few of them, no more than by chance alone. Here isone "consistency:" Antithetical Parallelism in the Book of Mormon. Antithetical parallelism is when one idea in a line or stanza is contrasted with an opposite or antithetical idea in a parallel line or stanza. Example: Proverbs 13:9 "The light of the righteous rejoiceth, but the lamp of the wicked shall be put out." Examples from the Book of Mormon: Alma 5:40 "Whatsoever is good, cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil, cometh from the devil. Alma 9:28 "If they have been righteous they shall reap the salvation of their souls, according to the power and deliverance of Jesus Christ. and if they have been evil they shall reap- the damnation of their souls, according to the power and captivation of the devil." Alma 36:21 "Yea, I say unto you my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy." The use of this device in the BoM is, interestingly, exclusive toone writer--Alma. If Joseph Smith had used this device as part of an attempt to make the BoM seem credulous, he would have inserted it throughout the book.Alma's exclusive use of this poetic device isconsistent with the assertionthat the BoM had multiple authors. - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 10:32 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america David, You are right. Even one falsehood in the BoM should cast skepticism on the entire book, causing one who believes it is true to question every statement. However, LDS apologists are not about to let that happen. They are very clever at twisting scripture to use as prooftexts for the BoM, and weaving long tales that attempt to connect BoM statements to reality. I have read Reynolds and Nibley, two revered LDS apologists, and it is really quite amusing to see the great leaps they will make to try to justify or "prove" a BoM point. They are desparate men attempting to make a novel they believe to be true fit reality. Their endeavors, while inventive, are fruitless. However, I realized last week that, other than items that were already known in the time of Joseph Smith, such as facts stated from the Bible or other historical facts that were known at the time of it's writing, every other statement in the BoM is fiction. So, I offered to Blaine the challenge to produce even one fact from the BoM, other than things that were already known at the time of JS, that can be proven. I feel confident that the challenge cannot be met. He offered the evidence of barley. Well, that is not proof. It is a possibility, but there are many other possibilities, too. A "possibility" does not constitute a "proof". He offered the evidence of iron. Again, that is a "possibility", but does not constitute a "proof". You ask exactly what I am looking for. Here are some examples that would constitute a proof to me. 1) If gold plates inscribed in "reformed Egyptian" were found buried in a hill in New York that were shown scientifically to be of ancient origin, and were translated by independent Egyptologists, and were found to contain the text of the BoM, (including the parts that are EXACT duplicates of the Bible). Now, that would be proof of a monumental nature that some of the facts in the BoM are true. 2) If an extremely large and advanced ancient city in America was excavated, and the hall of records was located, and verifiably ancient dated records were found which contains the names of individuals that are in the BoM. Again, monumental proof that the BoM contains a fact or two. Okay, those last two would be a Mormon's dream come true, and not very likely, but: 3) How about historical evidence that Jared existed. He was promised by God that his seed would be multiplied greater than Abraham's. Hey, I know a lot of Abraham's seed, but have never met a Jaredite. Neither has anyone else! If they were a greater nation than Abraham produced THEY SHOULD BE EVERYWWHERE! How about a historical document that gives a lineage of Jared? How about historical evidence that ANYONE named in the BoM existed! The point is, the BoM is total fiction (except for facts known at the time that the BoM was written by JS, such as the passages that are exact copies of passages from the Bible), and this is demonstrated by the fact that there is not ONE shred of proof that
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Blaine: That's easy Kevin--the splinter groups are not accepted by the Church of JC of LDS as just another living branch broken off the main olive tree, as is the case when breaks occur from Protestant churches. If a branch breaks off the LDS main trunk, it is considered a dead branch, and no longer part of the true church. Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:46 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. With over 200 LDS Splinter groups claiming to be a "restoration" and followers of JoE Smith, how does this equate to ONE faith?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine wrote: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture?At least as good as Mormonism, eh? LOL.Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine: It has that quality of becoming musty and moldy if not eaten right away. Luckily, the Lord was able to preserve a few kernals in Phoenix. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america By BoM accounts Barley should be discovered everywhereBlaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Sorry, but I got so far behind, I started deleting posts without reading them--it was the only way I could catch up and get current. (:) I even deleted DavidM's posts, which I am usually careful to read, so don't take it personally. In fact, I unsubscribed for a couple of days while I was gone to Richfield to take my son there for a job. But thanks for letting me know the challenge is there--who put it there? Just to remind you--maybe you didn't read it, or you dismissed it as being unimportant--I have already posted on the discovery of barley in the Americas before Columbus' time.The December 1983 issue of the Science 83 reported the discovery in Phoenix, Arizona by professional archaeologists. Prior to its discovery, barley was thought to be an old world crop only, and was widely used by anti-BoM advocates as proof the BoM was a fake. It is of fundamental importance, since barley has long been associated with the law of Moses as a wave offering during the Passover, which is held during Abib, the first month mentioned in the Bible, which means "the greening,"referring to the greening of the barley crop in the early Spring. This cropwasplanted in the fall as a dry crop. It depended on Spring moisture to bring it up early, and was the first of the grain crops to show maturity. When it was used as a wave offering, it signified Jesus having barely attained maturity (age 33) when he was crucified. The same with the Pascal lamb, which was to be a lamb or goat of the FIRST YEAR. For Lehi and his group to have left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. without barley would have seriously compromised BoM credibility. The BoM references to barleyare found in: Mosiah 7:22 "and one half of our corn, and our BARLEY, and even all our grain of every kind." Mosiah, 9:9 "And we began to till the ground with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of BARLEY, . . . Alma 11:7 "A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of BARLEY, and also for a measure for every kind of grain." Alma 11:15 "A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of BARLEY." - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Blaine, Just a reminder that there is a challenge on the table for you to present one provable, or proven, fact from the BoM that did not come from the Bible. Maybe you have not gotten to it yet in your catching up on TT posts. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date:! Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:19:54 -0700 Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin-- sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on ! earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I
Re: [TruthTalk] iron as a decorative metal in the Book of Mormon
Blaine: LOL It hasn't been built, but plans are pending--probably up there on high in the celestial office building. I have a nice supply of rusty nails in my garage, will that do in the meanwhile? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] iron as a decorative metal in the Book of Mormon In what Museum did you say King Noah's ornaments are located? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: In the Book of Mosiah in the BoM, King Noah, a wicked Nephite King, built many elegant buildings and "ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron" (Mosiah 11:8) We would not think of iron as a decorative metal nowadays, nor was it considered such in the time of Joseph Smith. However, it was considered a preciousitem at one time, along with gold and silver andthesemi-preciousblue stoneLapis Lazuli in ancient Israel, according to a recent article, "King Og'sIron Bed--Fact or Fancy?"Bible Review 6 (April 1990): 16-20 Here, Allen R. Millard documents archeological evidence of iron being used to decorate beds (Deut 3:11) and thrones, as well as bracelets and jewelry, weapons and royal swords. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Discovery of just ONE senum or ONE shiblon should do it. With many coins in circulation this should be easy as we have many discovered coins from the Bible era. Blaine: I don't know about coins, but what about cement? The Book of Mormon mentions cement being used extensively: Helaman 3:7-11 "The people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement." ". . .they did build houses of cement." ". . . all manner of their buildings," and many of their cities "both of wood and cement." The temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present day Mexico City, uses cement mucho mas! It dates back to the time indicated in the BoM. After 200 years, it still exceeds present day building code requirements. Cement as a building material is also found in the Valley of Mexico, and in the Maya regions of Southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. Use of cement is not found in other Indian buildings, only the Maya seem to have used it. It was basically a lime cement, according to the writers of my source article, "Concrete Evidence for the book of Mormon," by Matthew G. Wells, and John C. Welch. More about this can be found in chapter 61 of Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John C. Welch. Thousands of Biblical sites have been discovered. Just one Nephite city will do. Blaine You keep saying one site will do--what about the Nahom site on the Arabian Peninsula? That has yet to be explained away.(:) The alledged discovery of barley proves nothing about the BoM a senum would there is not other explanation for a senum than the BoM. Blaine: The Book of Mormon also tells of thedownfall and ultimate destruction of the entire civilization and legal system of the Nephites, of which the coins and their grain equivalents were a part. I would be very surprised if much survived at all. The final destruction took place less than 400 yrs after the visitation of Jesus Christ to these people. Isn't the Hohokam site the same one later settled by LDS? How do you know the barley was not planted in the mid 1800's? Blaine: That seems to be a way-out possibility to me. The Hohokam Indians raised many crops besides Barley, in a huge area of thousands of acres, as indicated in info below: "Salting" such a huge area with a few barley seeds would be pretty difficult, and time consuming. Those Mormon settlers would have to have been far more motivated than any Mormon settlers I ever heard of--I doubt they even knew barley was a controversial subject. They were more likely preoccupied with surviving in a hostile environment. (:) "The Hohokam utilised extensive and ingenious canal systems to irrigate thousands of acres of their farmland; more than three hundred miles of major canals, and nearly three times that number of smaller canals, have been recorded in the lower Salt River valley alone (Houk 1992: 8). As well as their irrigated crops of maize, lima and tepary beans, squash, tobacco, cotton, barley and amaranth, the Hohokam gathered saguaro cactus fruit, prickly pear pads, cholla cactus buds, plantain, mesquite beans and agave from the wild desert. Maize kernels recovered from Hohokam dwelling sites have been dated to 300 B.C., or the time of the earliest Hohokam settlements." More on this subject can be found at: http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/westweb/ancient/hohokam/farming.html Blaine is this where you get your FACTS from FAIR?http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/anach2.pdf Blaine: I have a book titled Reexploring the book of Mormon, edited by John Welch. It has FARMS research in it. See you at conference! Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine,I offered the challenge a week or so ago:"If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands."That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only.PerryFrom: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of americaDate: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:40 -0700Blaine: Sorry, but I got so far behind, I started deleting posts without reading them--it was the only way I could catch up and get current. (:) I even deleted DavidM's posts, which I am usually careful to read, so don't ! gt;take it personally. In fact,
Re: [TruthTalk] astrology
Blaine: Hmmm, can you give me your exact time and place of birth? I can't predict much without being able to place your sun, moon and planets in houses with reference to your rising sign.You were born with the Sun in Saggitarius, Moon in Taurus, Mercury and Venus in Capricornus, Mars in Aquarius, Jupiter in Pices, and Saturn in Libra.You might want to consult astrology books on those placements yourself. The problem with astrolgy nowadays is that ithas no central school or authority, much like thetraditional Christian religion. This means anyone who wants can presume to be an authority on the subject--even worse, there is no "Bible" or Book of Mormon to go to for settling disagreements.I personally believe in ancient times it may have been a real science, at least in sense that it used math and only pretty smart men were able to read it. Let's face it, the astrologers or wise men from the East in Christ's time were able to employ it to locate the Lord's place and time of birth. There is evidence the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used it, and taught it to their children . How did it get started? It's actual origins seem to have been lost in the dim past. It may have originally been given to man as a revelation from God, but has obviously become corrupted, and consequently today is looked upon as a despicable psuedo-science. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:20 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] astrology Astrology is testable? Here's a test: I was born on Dec 20, 1950. Predict for me when I will find a job. For bonus points, tell me in what career field that job will be. vincent j. fulton On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:32:11 -0700 "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine: This has nothing to do with my Mormon upbringing, but I beg to differ with your statement, " Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be tested. Anyone familiar with the subject of astrology will tell you much research has already been done. For instance, the Rosecrucians did elaborate research on the relationship between astrological sign of birth (sun sign) and longevity. This is definitely testable, and in fact the results were rather astounding--women born in the sign Gemini consistently tended to outlive women born in any other sign, and the same with men born under the sign Taurus, with Gemini men coming in a close second. For both men and women, Sagitarrius was the shortest lived sign. I believe I could also show that certain signs favor certain others in choosing marriage partners--or friends. This would be a simple test, and not hard to design an experiment using all of the known statisical methods familiar to scientists. Your comments actually show your almost total ignorance of the subject of Astrology--I could say much more, but will suffice for now.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Science needs math, but math doesn't need science.Mathematicians and theologians both can and often do start with premises which they find interesting but are not necessarily rooted in the real world, then they follow out the logical implications of those premises. The analogy breaks down in that theologians' conclusions can be tried against God's truth as revealed in the bible, but there's no way that I know of to check the conclusions of mathematicians. Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be tested. They cannot tell the future as they claim to do. They cannot explain peoples' personality quirks as they claim to do. Astrology is to astronomy as professional wrestling is to the olympics.vincent j. fulton On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:57 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vince wrote:Theology is more like math than science I'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of science. Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you canelaborate on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more likemath than science. Vince wrote:you start with an assumption or set of assumptions, regardless of how much they do or do not seem to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive conclusions from those assumptions. Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like youare saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions theymake fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say? All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make assumptions and reason from those
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Blaine: If you don't want to believe something, you can always find some reasons to justify yourself. I do not swallow astrolgy whole, but it does seem to have some truths, at least as far as explaining personality traits. According to one source, there are 12 to the 27th power possible personality types using astrolgy. No other personality theory can account for so much human variability. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Watching the stars helps us determine time, the seasons, etc. Astrology does not have theories about the universe. A theory is testable and the results of those tests are reproducable by other trained scientists. Astrological myths are not the same as a theory. I don't believe that astrology foretold Jesus' birth. The star did not act like a star. It acted more like a spirit manifested as a star; the bible does equate the word star with angel in some instances, so I suspect that this was one of those instances. I ask again, where are we going with all of this? vincent j. fulton On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:11:00 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When the Bible teaches us that the stars and planets are for signs, what do you think that means? Is there any possibility that this includes astrology? -- 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] astrology
Blaine: You'd make a grand astrologer, Wm, you ought to go to Hogworts for
an advanced degree. LOL
- Original Message -
From: Wm. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] astrology
I just consulted the stars and, well, good news and bad. The bad news is,
they said you are not going to get a job, in any field, because you're not
a
farmer [:( The good news is, you might get one somewhere else {:)
hehe
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:20 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] astrology
Astrology is testable? Here's a test: I was born on Dec 20, 1950.
Predict for me when I will find a job. For bonus points, tell me in what
career field that job will be.
vincent j. fulton
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:32:11 -0700 Blaine Borrowman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blaine: This has nothing to do with my Mormon upbringing, but I beg to
differ with your statement,
Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no
theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot
be
tested.
Anyone familiar with the subject of astrology will tell you much
research has already been done. For instance, the Rosecrucians did
elaborate research on the relationship between astrological sign of
birth
(sun sign) and longevity. This is definitely testable, and in fact the
results were rather astounding--women born in the sign Gemini
consistently tended to outlive women born in any other sign, and the
same
with men born under the sign Taurus, with Gemini men coming in a close
second. For both men and women, Sagitarrius was the shortest lived
sign.
I believe I could also show that certain signs favor certain others in
choosing marriage partners--or friends. This would be a simple test,
and
not hard to design an experiment using all of the known statisical
methods familiar to scientists.
Your comments actually show your almost total ignorance of the subject
of
Astrology--I could say much more, but will suffice for now.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Science needs math, but math doesn't need science.
Mathematicians and theologians both can and often do start with
premises which they find interesting but are not necessarily rooted in
the real world, then they follow out the logical implications of those
premises. The analogy breaks down in that theologians' conclusions can
be
tried against God's truth as revealed in the bible, but there's no way
that I know of to check the conclusions of mathematicians.
Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have
no
theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot
be
tested. They cannot tell the future as they claim to do. They cannot
explain peoples' personality quirks as they claim to do. Astrology is
to
astronomy as professional wrestling is to the olympics.
vincent j. fulton
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:57 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Vince wrote:
Theology is more like math than science
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of
science.
Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you can
elaborate
on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more like
math
than science.
Vince wrote:
you start with an assumption or set of assumptions,
regardless of how much they do or do not seem
to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive
conclusions from those assumptions.
Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like you
are
saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions they
make
fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say?
All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make
assumptions
and reason from those assumptions.
Science reasons from the premise that Truth can be apprehended only
through the physical senses. Theology maintains an additional
assumption, that we can gain knowledge through the spirit.
Vince wrote:
Astrology is founded on fairy tales, superstition, etc.
To those who accept the basic premises of astrology,
that heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on
peoples' personalities and the events which occur in
peoples' lives, it's easy to believe the stuff pumped
out by astrologers. It makes sense to those who believe
the basic premises.
Are you saying that there is no foundation at all for astrology?
Doesn't Gen. 1:14 say, let them be for signs...? Doesn't Daniel
6:27
and Acts 2:19 affirm
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine: Sorry, but I got so far behind, I started deleting posts without reading them--it was the only way I could catch up and get current. (:) I even deleted DavidM's posts, which I am usually careful to read, so don't take it personally. In fact, I unsubscribed for a couple of days while I was gone to Richfield to take my son there for a job. But thanks for letting me know the challenge is there--who put it there? Just to remind you--maybe you didn't read it, or you dismissed it as being unimportant--I have already posted on the discovery of barley in the Americas before Columbus' time.The December 1983 issue of the Science 83 reported the discovery in Phoenix, Arizona by professional archaeologists. Prior to its discovery, barley was thought to be an old world crop only, and was widely used by anti-BoM advocates as proof the BoM was a fake. It is of fundamental importance, since barley has long been associated with the law of Moses as a wave offering during the Passover, which is held during Abib, the first month mentioned in the Bible, which means "the greening,"referring to the greening of the barley crop in the early Spring. This cropwasplanted in the fall as a dry crop. It depended on Spring moisture to bring it up early, and was the first of the grain crops to show maturity. When it was used as a wave offering, it signified Jesus having barely attained maturity (age 33) when he was crucified. The same with the Pascal lamb, which was to be a lamb or goat of the FIRST YEAR. For Lehi and his group to have left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. without barley would have seriously compromised BoM credibility. The BoM references to barleyare found in: Mosiah 7:22 "and one half of our corn, and our BARLEY, and even all our grain of every kind." Mosiah, 9:9 "And we began to till the ground with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of BARLEY, . . . Alma 11:7 "A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of BARLEY, and also for a measure for every kind of grain." Alma 11:15 "A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of BARLEY." - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Blaine, Just a reminder that there is a challenge on the table for you to present one provable, or proven, fact from the BoM that did not come from the Bible. Maybe you have not gotten to it yet in your catching up on TT posts. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:19:54 -0700 Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin-- sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Hi Bill,
I agree that the Lord works in mysterious ways his
wonders to perform--there is much we don'tunderstand that he does, and I
guess the bottom line is--whatever works, works, huh?
Advocates of BIBLE ONLY scriptures might take
offense at this, but I can't pass up this opportunity to say the BoM has led
millions to having faith in Jesus Christ--sans the traditional baggage that
usually goes with theBIBLE-IS-THE -ONLY-SCRIPTURE point of view.
(:)
- Original Message -
From:
Wm. Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:31
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
Hey, Blaine, No problem -- it's not my
story. I'm just telling it like I heard it. I happen to know this kid quite
well and believe he's telling it like he saw it }:)but beyond that,
you'll have to decide. As far as being schizophrenic, I happen to know that he
has not been diagnosed as such. By the way, what is schizophrenia? Could it
just as easily be demonic? For that matter, where better to pick up a few
transient "friends" than at a GD concert, tripping on acid? The point is,
whatever the diagnosis, it brought him promptly to the Lord, who promptly
received him into the fold and continues to feedhim there. Am I saying
that the best way to meet Jesus is on drugs? Should we be teaching an LSD
doctrine? Of course not. But why not let the Lord work in mysterious ways and
us marvel at his majesty? Praise the Lord!
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Blaine
Borrowman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:42
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
Blaine: You used the word,
"hallucinating." Was thisfriend a frequent hallucinator?
How old was he? Peoplewith hereditary schizophrenia have both
visual and auditory hallucinations frequently, usually starting in the late
teens or early twenties--prior to that, they most often seem quite
normal. That it happened at a concert of the Grateful Dead,
members ofagroup of notorius and self confessed fornicators
makes this suspect.Also, the very excitement of a rock concert is
exactly the stimulus often associated with unusual hallcinations. I
once knew a woman who hallucinated often--she was a diagnosed
schizophrenic--and she told me she tended to get that way under conditions
of stressand/or excitement. She lost a baby after a pregnancy of
6 or so months, and fell into a delerium of hallucinatory episodesthat
lasted for months, which she had no control over. Otherwise, most of
the time she was able to tell the difference between her hallucinations and
reality. Not to knock your story, but . . .
- Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:03
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman
gets the Bird
Read my Polanyi post and get back to
me.
As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know.
I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at
a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair
walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd
and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing
through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell
on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He
is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led
him.
I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's
Truth, whatever the discloser.
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman
gets the Bird
If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about
checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven?
If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in
it?
So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity?
Was he a christian in more than name only?
What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Judy,
I do not know if you are aware of this,
so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments
intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt
and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in
several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is c
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Judy wrote: There is ONE Lord Blaine: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 2:00 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, If it is not your gift to reach people in these arenas, that is fine. Why be offended if it is someone else's? Jesus is not bound by our limitations. He always raises someone up to preach the Gospel. That someone may be a philosopher to philosophers, a scientist to scientists, a blond haired big hallucination to druggies. What difference does it make? Praise the Lord! Bill jt: Now WHAT is the gospel? We have several different Jesus characters here and I wonder how many gospels there are. The way I understand the example Jesus of Nazareth left - his followers left their nets to follow him. They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of itdung. I know everyone is not called to the same ministry as Paul and some folk dostay in their former professions but we are not to follow them. There is ONE Lord. We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. judyt From: Kevin Deegan I think not. The point is why go to a place where you must pick throughthe trash to get at the meat, when you can go Boldly to the One who is truth? Why not point people directly to the Truth (John "thy word IS Truth") rather than a secondary source? Some might swallow a bone."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what do you think, Kevin?
[TruthTalk] iron as a decorative metal in the Book of Mormon
Blaine: In the Book of Mosiah in the BoM, King Noah, a wicked Nephite King, built many elegant buildings and "ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron" (Mosiah 11:8) We would not think of iron as a decorative metal nowadays, nor was it considered such in the time of Joseph Smith. However, it was considered a preciousitem at one time, along with gold and silver andthesemi-preciousblue stoneLapis Lazuli in ancient Israel, according to a recent article, "King Og'sIron Bed--Fact or Fancy?"Bible Review 6 (April 1990): 16-20 Here, Allen R. Millard documents archeological evidence of iron being used to decorate beds (Deut 3:11) and thrones, as well as bracelets and jewelry, weapons and royal swords.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Blaine: This has nothing to do with my Mormon upbringing, but I beg to differ with your statement, " Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be tested. Anyone familiar with the subject of astrology will tell you much research has already been done. For instance, the Rosecrucians did elaborate research on the relationship between astrological sign of birth (sun sign) and longevity. This is definitely testable, and in fact the results were rather astounding--women born in the sign Gemini consistently tended to outlive women born in any other sign, and the same with men born under the sign Taurus, with Gemini men coming in a close second. For both men and women, Sagitarrius was the shortest lived sign. I believe I could also show that certain signs favor certain others in choosing marriage partners--or friends. This would be a simple test, and not hard to design an experiment using all of the known statisical methods familiar to scientists. Your comments actually show your almost total ignorance of the subject of Astrology--I could say much more, but will suffice for now. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Science needs math, but math doesn't need science. Mathematicians and theologians both can and often do start with premises which they find interesting but are not necessarily rooted in the real world, then they follow out the logical implications of those premises. The analogy breaks down in that theologians' conclusions can be tried against God's truth as revealed in the bible, but there's no way that I know of to check the conclusions of mathematicians. Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be tested. They cannot tell the future as they claim to do. They cannot explain peoples' personality quirks as they claim to do. Astrology is to astronomy as professional wrestling is to the olympics. vincent j. fulton On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:57 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vince wrote: Theology is more like math than scienceI'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of science. Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you can elaborate on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more like math than science. Vince wrote: you start with an assumption or set of assumptions,regardless of how much they do or do not seem to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive conclusions from those assumptions. Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like you are saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions they make fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say?All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make assumptions and reason from those assumptions. Science reasons from the premise that Truth can be apprehended only through the physical senses. Theology maintains an additional assumption, that we can gain knowledge through the spirit. Vince wrote: Astrology is founded on fairy tales, superstition, etc.To those who accept the basic premises of astrology,that heavenly bodies have some sort of influence onpeoples' personalities and the events which occur in peoples' lives, it's easy to believe the stuff pumped out by astrologers. It makes sense to those who believe the basic premises.Are you saying that there is no foundation at all for astrology? Doesn't Gen. 1:14 say, "let them be for signs..."? Doesn't Daniel 6:27 and Acts 2:19 affirm this also? Wasn't the birth of Christ marked with a star? I do not believe astrology is right for the believer in Christ, but I think you go too far to say that astrology is founded only on fairy tales and superstition. I think Blaine would disagree too. :-) You are presenting a belief from your own culture and value system which is rooted in objectivity and materialism.Vince wrote: Astronomy is, like all of the hard sciences, based upon the scientific method. Observation with quantified measurements of tangible things like mass, temperature, speed, etc. Brainstorming / dreaming / imagining a hypothesis. Making logical predictions based upon that hypothesis. Experimenting to test those predictions. Confirming or denying the validity of the hypothesisbased upon the results of the experiments. Reproductionof the experiments and results by other scientists.Peer review of the final package.You may not realize this, but astrology also proceeds along these paths. They observe the heavens, calculate positions, and they correlate it with
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Blaine: I think Paul was a disciple of an important Pharisee--Hillel-- before he was converted to Christ, and this training gave him the fertile field he needed to fully understand and explain Christ to the disciples who, although sincere, did not have the beautiful insights Paul's training gave him. They were, if you will pardon the expression, sheep compared to Paul, who was a well qualified shepherd. Paul was no doubt singled out by the Lord to be a special; witness for this very reason. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:51 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Judy wrote: They gave up their former way of life and thought - in Pauls case he counted all of it dung. Yet Paul continued to be a Pharisee. He did not forsake his foundation in Judaism, but instead God used his Pharisaical training to give us a significant contribution of the Holy Scriptures. A person can consider it all dung in the light of Christ, but that does not mean that it is a sin to study and learn. Judy wrote: We are focused more on Polanyi than Jesus here and the subject line is backward. The person of Jesus IS ALL Truth. If Jesus IS ALL TRUTH, then all disciplines of study that lead to truth lead to Jesus Christ. I think we have been more focused on this list on Judy than we have on Polanyi. Who was Polanyi but another brother in Christ? Why would you want to make him any more or any less than that? Does his great learning intimidate you or something? Is ignorance bliss? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] a well conditioned mind
Blaine: Kevin, I did not say your statements were tortured--I said your arguments were tortuous, which means they twist and turn and present a challenge to anyone trying to follow them--like a road that winds through a canyon with a lot of turns andswitchbacks in it. Maybe having been born in the mountains as I was, I am more likely to be familiar with the term. (:) A second definition of the word tortuous is as follows from my Websters: Not straightforward, devious, deceitful. hmmm. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] a well conditioned mind Again a NO answer, just more verbage from one who has no ears to hear. Blaine you have got to be the KING of ASSERTIONS. The question is WHY ARE MY STATEMENTS TOTURED? WHY IS THE BIBLE WRONG ABOUT LOST SHEEP? 3 Nephi was written in 1829. How does it prove anything? Show proof why this is not ANACHRONISTIC! No gentile heard his voice? Then you provide an example of a Gentile woman, who did. These are the mental gymnastics one must perform to believe this rot. Notice Blaine I said your reasoning requires MENTAL GYMNASTICS, I did not leave it at that I provide an example. Therefore it is not just a baseless assertion as you always do. In order to believe LDS doctrine one must have a well "conditioned" mind in order to perform the mental gynastics required.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin--sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraha! m, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know ! not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voicethat I should not manifest myself unto them s! ave it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Blaine: Good reasoning, as usual, David--good backup scriptures, too - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:48 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Gary wrote: ... you fluidly embrace subjectivism and, therefore, teach people, falsely Gary, what is the definition of subjectivism that you have in mind? Is it the following? Subjectivism: PHILOSOPHY -- theory of the validity of knowledge: a theory stating that people can only have knowledge of what they experience directly. Do agree or disagree with the idea that Jesus Christ himself embraced subjectivism in the following passage: If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17 KJV) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Blaine: The following from the Book of Mormon--submitted by Kevin, thank you Kevin--sounds well-reasoned and plausible. I find it far more believable than the tortuous explanation Kevin gives trying to convince us Jesus was referring to the GENTILES when he said "OTHER SHEEP I HAVE WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD." Note again Jesus' response when he was accosted by the Gentile woman--a Canaanite--to come heal her daughter. He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Yet He later revealed to Peter that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles by the Apostles, and that the Holy Ghost was to be the instrument of conversion--not his voice. NO Gentile ever heard his voice, no Gentile was ever a witness to his ministry on earth, except by default as they may have been present as he ministered to the House of Israel ONLY. This was done to fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and later to Moses and other Israelite prophets. http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/15 3 Nephi 15:14-24 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voicethat I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Blaine: You used the word, "hallucinating." Was thisfriend a frequent hallucinator? How old was he? Peoplewith hereditary schizophrenia have both visual and auditory hallucinations frequently, usually starting in the late teens or early twenties--prior to that, they most often seem quite normal. That it happened at a concert of the Grateful Dead, members ofagroup of notorius and self confessed fornicators makes this suspect.Also, the very excitement of a rock concert is exactly the stimulus often associated with unusual hallcinations. I once knew a woman who hallucinated often--she was a diagnosed schizophrenic--and she told me she tended to get that way under conditions of stressand/or excitement. She lost a baby after a pregnancy of 6 or so months, and fell into a delerium of hallucinatory episodesthat lasted for months, which she had no control over. Otherwise, most of the time she was able to tell the difference between her hallucinations and reality. Not to knock your story, but . . . - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or
Re: [TruthTalk] Cut Paste tatic instead of LDS answers
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cut Paste tatic instead of LDS answers Anyone can cut paste Blaine. Do you expect everyone to read a 20 page cut paste of someone elses material? Maybe that is the point send so much material so that no one will read it That seems to be a important modus operandi for LDS. Send so much extraneous info that the original point get lost. LOL!! That was funny, Kevin. In answer to your questions, you ask too many questions and I don't have ime to answer themall, so i just don't answer any of them. But I will try to do better, OK? Blaine Why can't you answer point by point? have you ever tried to refute every point? How about answering even ONE that would be a grand start! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:07 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:ATTENTION BLAIN PERRY Twenty odd years ago I read a book entitled "Are the Mormon Scriptures Reliable"? Is this book still available? Thereafter I was on an 18 month trek involving BYU scholars, Ex-Mormons for Jesus groups, lots of primary source material and on and on. This "primary Source material"--can you recall what even some of it was? I spoke with most stake leaders in the area up to and including them taping my phone conversations without my knowledge. Blaine:LOL Sounds like they were giving you a hard time!!! What came of it - for them - for me? Notta, nuttin', zilch. So you are saying there is no further need for yakking away at each other, trying to prove our favorite viewpoint? What I also hear you saying is that you don't want me to keep publishing contradictions to Kevin'sMormon bashing.This seems to make you uncomfortable.(:) Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine:scroll down for the truth--ho hum. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? I'm sorry Blaine you want more on the witnesses? "...neither did I ever hear of such a thing as an angel ordaining them until I got into Ohio about the year 1834--or later. Oliver stated to me in Joseph's presence that they had baptized each other--seeking by that to fulfill the command. And after our arrival at fathers sometime in June 1829, Joseph ordained Oliver to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph to be an Elder in the Church of Christ." David Whitmer Interviews, page 154. Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887 Blaine: Oliver was reported to have said thishearsay, but noone was able to come up with an exact time or place. It was probably a lie in the first place. Cowdery rejoined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Kanesville, Iowa, and bore the following testimony to the Saints present fo the conference in 1848. He died in 1850. Oliver Cowdery, no longer a member of the LDS Church, testified to all those present that the Book of Mormon was true. Eventually Oliver left his law practice and journeyed to Kanesville, Iowa, with his wife and daughter and finally reunited with the Mormon Church in 1848. Before he was baptized he bore his testimony to the congregation of the church which had gathered for a conference. I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high. (Jenson, 1:246; italics added.)Oliver rejoined the Church and prepared to journey to Utah to unite with the main body of the Latter-day Saints but he died while living temporarily in Richmond Missouri. Oliver Cowdery had contracted tuberculosis. His dying breaths were spent testifying of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Lucy P. Young, his half-sister, was at his bedside and reported: Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, Lay me down and let me fall asleep. A few moments later he died without a struggle. (Ibid.) Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Kevin is right about the apostacies, wrong about the credibility of the witnessing. The 12 men never denied their testimonies, even after they had apostasized. Most, including two of the three witnesses who saw the angel, repented, and rejoined the LDS Church after it had moved to Utah. The third one, the only one not to rejoin, continued to accept interviews up to his very deathbed, and maintained steadfastly he had seen and heard all that he signed his name to. He often retold the story, never deviating from the original. As usual, Kevin doesn't give the full story or even relevant facts. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? These witnesses had no conviction. The things they "saw" made NO DIFFERENCE in their lives ALL of the 3 Witnesses APOSTACIZED (therefore they were witnesses against the power of the BoM) 4 of the eight Apostacied a fifth dying before he had a c
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry wrote:
Blaine: Aha! Just as I suspected--you are unwilling to support your accusation that the BoM is a heretical writing. I knew you would try to wriggle out of it, but this is absurd. YOU are the one making the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. Loose talk must be accounted for, Perry. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry wrote: Okay, I will start with the whole book. Your turn. From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry wrote: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:34:39 -0700 Perry wrote:DavidM, would you go to the BoM to learn about Jesus? No, you would go there to learn about the heresies of the Mormons. Blaine: Care to discuss some specific heresies from the BoM Perry? _ Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms - all in one place at MSN Money! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/home.asp -- 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 Last Days
- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days The RCC needed reformation because it was broken, not missing. Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church that existed outside the RCC. I do not believe that the restituion of all things has anything to so with the LDS. Just another LDS prooftext. In fact, the only references to restoring all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah? If not, please give ma a chapter and verse. Blaine I would also like chapters and verses regards Elijah restoring all things in Matthew and Luke. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I may add a comment, there is a difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite different. DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things, rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical evidence to suggest a reformation? Luther thought the church had gone astray, DAVEH: Yes.That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not consider such. and reformed it to correct doctrinal error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared. DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost.I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that reformation was due), DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can answer my questions about it..assuming you understand what I'm asking. Forget about JS for a moment.And consider the RCC folks. Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the years? Or.do you view them as apostates from the Primitive Church? And, if they were Apostatesthen wouldn't a restoration have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not, there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a restitution is/was necessary. but not JS. DAVEH: Listen Perry.I understand that few TTers have any sympathy for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by what I know and believe about his teachingsforgive me for that. What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution (restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making some minor changes.and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.I'm just trying to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. _ Find things fast with the new MSN Toolbar - includes FREE pop-up blocking! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."
Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone
Hi William, I have enjoyed reading some of your comments--I appreciate you tryingto shorten your posts,since I like reading short stuffbetter than long stuff. What I like best though, is the word, "stuff." It is nice and general, and can be relied upon as a truly nickel word when a dollar word will not come to mind. (:) You seem to have a lot of dollar words at the tip of your richly endowed keyboard. (:) In all honesty and candor, Ithink a lot of what you're trying tosay, however, is what I have come to call TCBS--Traditional Christian Belief System. You will find most of my posts reflect in some way or other my conviction that much of what is taught in so-called Christian Churches is basically tradition--which is either scantily supported by scripture, or supported only by the highly rationalized interpretations of those who want to believe the traditions--for whatever reasons. Your comments below are some of your better ones, so I am not picking on you--at least not now! (:) TT is fun, usually, so I hope we can at least agree to disagree from time to time. Just keep in mind, I never met a man I truly disliked--I even like Kevin, so you can see I have avery charitable attitude--basically, Peace, Blaine (Just anothersimple, unsophisticatedMormon boy, who loves the truth better than life) (:) - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Wm. Taylor wrote: Did Christ include Judas in his death? Did He die for him? I think, unless we want to go into a discussion of Limited Atonement, we must conclude that He did. What then, if Christ took Judas down with Him in death, would preclude him from Salvation? Will he (Judas) not see resurrection? If Judas rejected Jesus Christ, what he did was this: he refused to participate in the salvation provided him in the resurrection of his Savior. The only thing that sends Judas to hell, then, is Judas, if indeed Judas finally rejected Jesus Christ. That's how I read it.DAVEH: Thanx for your thoughtful comments, Bill. Bill - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Kevin Deegan wrote: He was a devilDAVEH: Do you believe he was a devil when Jesus chose and ordained him? Is the Devil saved?DAVEH: Not if he fails endure to the end, as did Judas. As a tangential question Kevin.Do you believe Jesus' grace can apply to one who has been labeled a devil? IOW.IF Judas had repented and confessed after his betrayal of our Saviour, would he then have qualified for salvation in your opinion? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: If only Judas could have endured one more moment?DAVEH: That's exactly the point.he did not endure, but instead chose to betray. Do you believe Judas had been saved at any time, Kevin? Had he endured, then would he not have been saved as Jesus promises? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Sinners.yes. Lost?.Can one be lost if he endures to the end? YESDAVEH: Now let me ask you, Terry.Do you believe one can be saved if he does not endure to the end?-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:TCBS vs TMBS
Blaine: I like your optimism, but unfortunately there are a few differences between the TCBS and the TMBS. But basically, they are so much alike that unless we want to split hairs, the differences do not show all that much. By basically, I refer to the fundamental belief in Jesus Christ as our savior, and that through his grace we are saved.I don't see a lot of difference between views on this throughout Christiandom--except Mormons carry it a step beyond by saying we are saved by grace only after all we can do for ourselves. Is this a major difference, or a minor one, as you see it? Blaine - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:56 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:TCBS vs TMBS Ever the undying optimist, I continue to hope that people such as yourself will see that these two are the same. (the latter being Traditional Mormon Belief System). Do you? Lance - Original Message - From: Blaine Borrowman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2004 17:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Hi William, I have enjoyed reading some of your comments--I appreciate you tryingto shorten your posts,since I like reading short stuffbetter than long stuff. What I like best though, is the word, "stuff." It is nice and general, and can be relied upon as a truly nickel word when a dollar word will not come to mind. (:) You seem to have a lot of dollar words at the tip of your richly endowed keyboard. (:) In all honesty and candor, Ithink a lot of what you're trying tosay, however, is what I have come to call TCBS--Traditional Christian Belief System. You will find most of my posts reflect in some way or other my conviction that much of what is taught in so-called Christian Churches is basically tradition--which is either scantily supported by scripture, or supported only by the highly rationalized interpretations of those who want to believe the traditions--for whatever reasons. Your comments below are some of your better ones, so I am not picking on you--at least not now! (:) TT is fun, usually, so I hope we can at least agree to disagree from time to time. Just keep in mind, I never met a man I truly disliked--I even like Kevin, so you can see I have avery charitable attitude--basically, Peace, Blaine (Just anothersimple, unsophisticatedMormon boy, who loves the truth better than life) (:) - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Wm. Taylor wrote: Did Christ include Judas in his death? Did He die for him? I think, unless we want to go into a discussion of Limited Atonement, we must conclude that He did. What then, if Christ took Judas down with Him in death, would preclude him from Salvation? Will he (Judas) not see resurrection? If Judas rejected Jesus Christ, what he did was this: he refused to participate in the salvation provided him in the resurrection of his Savior. The only thing that sends Judas to hell, then, is Judas, if indeed Judas finally rejected Jesus Christ. That's how I read it.DAVEH: Thanx for your thoughtful comments, Bill. Bill - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Questions set the tone Kevin Deegan wrote: He was a devilDAVEH: Do you believe he was a devil when Jesus chose and ordained him? Is the Devil saved?DAVEH: Not if he fails endure to the end, as did Judas. As a tangential question Kevin.Do you believe Jesus' grace can apply to one who has been labeled a devil? IOW.IF Judas had repented and confessed after his betrayal of our Saviour, would he then have qualified for salvation in your opinion? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: If only Judas could have endured one more moment?DAVEH: That's exactly the point.he did not endure, but instead chose to betray. Do you believe Judas had been saved at any time, Kevin? Had he endured, then would he not have been saved as Jesus promises? Dave [EMAIL
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Language-Including The Bible
Blaine: Good point, Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Language-Including "The Bible" From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt wrote If they were kept in their place it would not be so bad, but when they are used as a grid through which to determine God's truth they become a problematic. I reply Judy, Don't you get it? When we say, "Truth is a Person," we are already accepting, without reservations, the grid established by the very ones you see as being "problematic," the Nicene fathers. Get it? jt: No Bill, you are the one who does not "get it" I am not quoting the Nicene fathers when I say that "Truth" is a person. I am quoting John 14:16. The words of Jesus Himself where he says "I Am the Truth" They are the ones who invented the word "person" to express what their language could not otherwise say about the Godhead and Jesus Christ. That word spills down to us. We use it today to speak wonderful truths about the Word of God. jt: I don't need the Nicene Fathers to spill wonderful truths ABOUT the Word of God down to me. I have the Word of God and the promise to lead me into ALL truth. judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:35 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Language-Including "The Bible" From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not suggesting that anything other than Scripture is revelatory, neither are there other sources of truth comparable to the Bible. I am saying thattrue statements can come from sources other than the Bible. "Truth is aPerson" is a great little quote. The first time your hearit, it is pretty cool, because we are conditioned to think of truth in other categories. BUT the word "person" is not found in the Text, nor is there a Greek equivalent. jt: The Greeks don't have all the answers ... Is it aPERSON who said: "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life?" wt: So what do we do? Do we say it is an unbiblical idea? jt: No... wt: That's all that I'm asking. More than that, I am trying to get us to lighten up a bit on our criticisms about early Christianity and the language which came from their era. Bill Taylor jt: If they were kept in their place it would not be so bad, but when they are used as a grid through which to determine God's truth they become a problematic. judyt God allows the devil to raise up hereticsto make his people study To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wm. Taylor wrote: , I don't have a problem with it myself, but I'm not all pruned up about this it-has-to-come-from-the-bible stuff. What about you who are? Is that a true and accurate statement concerning Jesus Christ? Bill Taylor===You lost me Bill. Where else? Science, BoM, politics, Rev. Moon? Surely you do not mean there are other sources of truth comparable to the Bible.'splaine yourself!Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Pearls before swine?
Blaine: Ye!! Veeery interesting! Let me know if you remember where to see more info. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Pearls before swine? In a message dated 3/10/2004 11:51:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In New Mexico there is a stone in the side of a mountain with the 10 Commandments carved in the ancient Hebrew script that hasn't been used since around the time of Messiah. Where would we get verification for this? Verrry interesting. John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
JS = Joseph Smith?? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days In a message dated 3/10/2004 12:01:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JS' What is JS John -- the new guy
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? In a message dated 3/10/2004 4:23:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine: Kevin is right about the apostacies, wrong about the credibility of the witnessing. The 12 men never denied their testimonies, even after they had apostasized. Most, including two of the three witnesses who saw the angel, repented, and rejoined the LDS Church after it had moved to Utah. The third one, the only one not to rejoin, continued to accept interviews up to his very deathbed, and maintained steadfastly he had seen and heard all that he signed his name to. He often retold the story, never deviating from the original. As usual, Kevin doesn't give the full story or even relevant facts. Here's a history lesson. Oliver Cowdry was a teacher and, for a time, a participant in the Campbell/Stone movement (early 1800's).. Since I do not believe that Mormon "truth" is the product of revelation, perhaps some of it came from J Smith's association with others such as Cowdry. Cowdry would have believed in water baptism, elders, evangelism, communion, to name a few of the similarities. It is a hypothesis but is worth studying if you are a history buff. John When you say, "Cowdry would have believed in water baptism, elders, evangelism, communion, to name a few of the similarities," are you aware that Cowdery was just a school teacher, not a religious teacher? You seem to be assuming a lot,and not telling us where your assumptions are coming from. My question is, why are you making such an assumption? Sorry but I don't get your line of reasoning here. Blaine
[TruthTalk] Perry wrote:
Perry wrote:DavidM, would you go to the BoM to learn about Jesus? No, you would go there to learn about the heresies of the Mormons. Blaine: Care to discuss some specific heresies from the BoM Perry?
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Are you confusing Oliver Cowdery with Sidney Rigdon? Oliver was a school teacher first, later an attorney. Sidney was , as indicated, a minister. Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? More likely these associations: Sidney Rigdon was excommunicated as a Baptist minister on October 11, 1823, for teaching false doctrine, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He joined Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott to form the emerging Disciples of Christ.He was a Campbellite preacher until he "converted" to Mormonism in 1830. Rigdon was excommunicated in September 1844 he then organized a Church of Christ in Pa. In 1864 he organized a "Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion" Orson Hyde was also a Campbellite before "converting" to Mormonism Parley Pratt convertedto the "Reformed Baptist Society" (Campbellite) through the preaching of Sidney Rigdon and "converted" to mormonism in 1830 "This matter of 'Priesthood,' since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. Priesthood means authority; and authority is the word we should use. I do not think the word priesthood is mentioned in the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon. Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church--until Sydney Rigdon's days in Ohio. This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire, and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their heartsaccording to the desires of the heart, the inspiration comes, but it may be the spirit of man that gives it This is the way the High Priests a! nd the 'priesthood' as you have it, was introduced into the Church of Christ almost two years after its beginning--and after we had baptized and confirmed about two thousand souls into the church." (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer p. 64) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/10/2004 4:23:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine: Kevin is right about the apostacies, wrong about the credibility of the witnessing. The 12 men never denied their testimonies, even after they had apostasized. Most, including two of the three witnesses who saw the angel, repented, and rejoined the LDS Church after it had moved to Utah. The third one, the only one not to rejoin, continued to accept interviews up to his very deathbed, and maintained steadfastly he had seen and heard all that he signed his name to. He often retold the story, never deviating from the original. As usual, Kevin doesn't give the full story or even relevant facts. Here's a history lesson. Oliver Cowdry was a teacher and, for a time, a participant in the Campbell/Stone movement (early 1800's).. Since I do not believe that ! Mormon "truth" is the product of revelation, perhaps some of it came from J Smith's association with others such as Cowdry. Cowdry would have believed in water baptism, elders, evangelism, communion, to name a few of the similarities. It is a hypothesis but is worth studying if you are a history buff. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
Blaine: I am not much of a scholar, Kevin old buddy, but you seem to have a limited understandingof verymuchbeyondyour favorite verses. You seem to speak most often from the Traditional Christian point of view rather than from actual scripture. From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Your a bible scholar now?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Kevin wrote: Did you finish Aesop's yet? Blaine: I guess that is your best shot for answers to actual Bible scripture, which I seem to know better than you do, huh Kevin?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Blaine, The Mormon shuffle, again, Blaine. The "other flock" happens to be the gentiles. Do you have any supporting biblical evidence that states otherwise? You see, this is nothing more than one of the LDS prooftexts I often complain about. This type of prooftexting really slanders the Word and attempts to deceive those to whom it is spewed. Blaine: LOL!! What I hear you spewing is one more of the traditional doctrines inculcated in Protestants without biblical support, being the doctrines of men and not God. The Bible says that the gospel was not taken to the Gentiles until Peter received the revelation to do so.(Acts 10:28) Christ never preached to the Gentiles. They NEVER heard his voice, unless they happened to be around when he taught the House of Israel--ONLY! As he said when a Canaanite woman (a gentile) came begginghim to heal her daughter, who was vexed with devils: (Matt 15: 23-26) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him,saying, "send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel."Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." He answered her, and said, "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." Of course he had mercy on her and healed her daughter, but only because she showed such great faith in him. This is the ONLY exception to the rule he otherwise strictly adhered to throughout his ministry. Can you show evidence otherwise? You see, there were Jews and Gentiles, from the Jewish perspective. And, to whiom was Jesus speaking? Go back to Jn 9:40 to see that. The Pharisees. And who did they represent? The jews. And who was the "other flock"? That is, who besides the Jews was the gospel given to? The gentiles. Blaine: Eventually, the gospel was given to the Gentiles, but only after the Lord expired on the cross, andthe revelation was given to Peter to do so. The Gentiles never heard the Lord Preach--yet he says, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice . . . He was revealing his determination to seek out the lost tribes of Israel as they were then scattered throughout the world--in Ireland, in England, on the isles of the sea, and in the Americas!! The Hawaaians called him LONO, the Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana--the Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl, the Aztecs called him Viracocha, etc, etc, I could show many references for this phenomenon. In all cases he was described as being a tall white man with a beard who was reverenced by those who met him. He promised to return in the future and bring world peace and prosperity. The Hopis had even been taught certain handshakes with which to identify him when he returned. (More about this later). Get on Google. Read about Captain Cook's experiences among the Pacific Islanders, read about the Spanish Conquistadors when they entered Mexico, read! ! about Easter Island and the stone statues, read The Kon Tiki Exp
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine: Not so fast, Kevin, I was not
necessarily making that argument. And your comparison with Muslims is off,
too. Mormons are Christians, so the only fair comparison is with other
Christians.
But my question, is, Why are you so
defensive/offensive about this religion? You really get franitic when it
gets a positive plug on TT, like it is a personal thing. This does not
make sense, since there are many other religions you must disagree with--yet you
seem only worried Mormonism
might take root and grow. Your put-downs are so numerous as not to be
countable.
From: Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:36
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins
found in Kentucky?
Well here we go the LDS church is true because they are growing so fast
argument.
If the rate of growth is the determining factor, get out your turbin and
become a muslim thay are much bigger than the LDS church.Blaine
Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:19
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew
Coins found in Kentucky?
I would welcome that event.
But in the meantimeI will revel in all the
conversions right outside the SLC Temple gates. See you in
April Blaine.
Blaine: Hpw many is "all
the conversions, Kevin? Exactly how many.Terry
Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Blaine
Borrowman wrote:
Blaine You are probably right about
one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had
not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition,
repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods
who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have
a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing
to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than
the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful
depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully
fear.
FEAR is the
opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle
upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world.
Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or
anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the
devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst
it. There are now Mormon temples all
over the South, doesn't this concern the
baptists?Presently, there are temples
in:
Tennessee: Nashville and
Memphas; North Carolina:
Raleigh; South Carolina:
Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham;
Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta;
Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San
Antonio; Virginia: Washington
DC
Hmmm., maybe
the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they
no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the
Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their
neighbors!! LOL
===
C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on
the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the
Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is
no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a
great falling away. One day soon, the Father is going to turn to
the Son, and say,"Go get 'em". When that happens, it will be too
late to change, so I suggest that as soon as you get those DNA results
back, you put all this Mormon stuff behind you and be born
again. If you did, Kevin would have to embrace you as a
brother. You could become a wealthy man just selling tickets to
that event.Think about it.Terry
What you
Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre
looking for faster.
Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking
for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine: My comments are in blue--scroll down - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:55:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition, and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin. (:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boys use to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. How many blacks are in the Mormon church and when were they allowed to be a part of the fellowship? Blaine: There is no way of knowing for sure how many Blacks are members of the LDS faith, since color is not listed on membership records. However, in Ghana, Africaalone, there were 17, 278 members as of the publication of the 2000 Deseret News Church Almanac, most of them Black. The same book lists 81, 962 members in West Africa, and another 50,780 members in South East Africa,with most African nations being represented.There are currently three temples in Africa, the latest one to be dedicated being in Accra, Ghana--this temple represents about 25 stakes, or about 150 wards, as well as about 200 smaller branches. Not all Baptist are as described above. Actully most are not.But if you live in a glass house, you really shouldn't throw stones. The Mormon church is the only religion in America that excluded blacks as a matter of denominational structure. The Baptist church in the North had black brethren at the same time the hypocrites in the South did not. Blaine:As a matter of unofficial church dogma--tradition--Blacks in the South were disallowed from attending White churches, schools, evenmost public places,e.g., restaurants and school buses. In the North, although Blacks were allowedfull membershipin Baptist and other Protestant denominations, the prevailing philosophy was to keep them separate--but equal. In other words,distance was placed between them and Whites in almost all instances. But blacks were excluded from the Mormon church (at least as leaders) as a matter of church dogma. John Blaine: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never did exclude Blacks from membership, just the priesthood. Other thanthis ban, Blacks were well treated as Church members. But what's the big deal? The Israelites--God's chosen people--banned all tribes from holding the priesthood except the tribe of Levi, and only those descended from Aaron himself could hold the highest office in that priesthood--that of High Priest.
[TruthTalk] Too much mail!
I have been gone for a week, and I now have almost 500 e-mails to read--and hopefully to answer!! Hope you don't get offended if you wrote me a message and I don't answer it for a while! (:)
[TruthTalk] Fw: A Scene in San Francisco
- Original Message - From: Kent Harker To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: A Scene in San Francisco A Scene in San Francisco"Next.""Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.""Names?""Tim and Jim Jones.""Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.""Yes, we're brothers.""Brothers? You can't get married.""Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?""Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!""Incest?" No, we are not gay.""Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?""For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.Besides, we don't have any other prospects.""But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who'vebeen denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, youcan get married to a woman.""Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as Ihave. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry awoman. I want to marry Jim.""And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against usjust because we are not gay?""All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next.""Hi. We are here to get married.""Names?""John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wantsto marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other.""But there are four of you!""That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert lovesJune and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that wecan express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.""But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.""So you're discriminating against bisexuals!""No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is thatit's just for couples.""Since when are you standing on tradition?""Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.""Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says theconstitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us amarriage license!""All right, all right. Next.""Hello, I'd like a marriage license.""In what names?""David Deets.""And the other man?""That's all. I want to marry myself.""Marry yourself? What do you mean?""Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want tomarry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.""That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine: Kevin is right about the apostacies, wrong about the credibility of the witnessing. The 12 men never denied their testimonies, even after they had apostasized. Most, including two of the three witnesses who saw the angel, repented, and rejoined the LDS Church after it had moved to Utah. The third one, the only one not to rejoin, continued to accept interviews up to his very deathbed, and maintained steadfastly he had seen and heard all that he signed his name to. He often retold the story, never deviating from the original. As usual, Kevin doesn't give the full story or even relevant facts. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? These witnesses had no conviction. The things they "saw" made NO DIFFERENCE in their lives ALL of the 3 Witnesses APOSTACIZED (therefore they were witnesses against the power of the BoM) 4 of the eight Apostacied a fifth dying before he had a chanceto, with the last 3 being SMITHS! More of a witness against the BoM! The church was founded in 1830 for 5 years they had NO APOSTLES! How could this be? In 1835 The Elders laid hands on the 12 to appoint them as Apostles. How does one that is a Melch Priest commision an Apostle? Waiting for your answer. (Put this question with all the others you are unable to answer) Your first 12 were not duly appointed which breaks your line of Priests, Prophets too! 6 of the first 12 Apostacized! What is with the bad track record? In addition the DC call some of these men "wicked", "to mean to mention" and says some of them "could not tell a true from a false revelation" What a great witness you have there Blaine Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The problem is, you didn't give it a fair trial. In any court in America (most courts, except maybe in Southern states whereall thoseBaptists hang out--lol), the testimony of two witnesses is enough to prove innocence--or guilt. The BoM has three witnesses who saw the angel, the gold plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters (Urim and thummim), and the compass used by Lehi and his group to guide them to the Promised Land, called the Liahona--plus eight more witnesses who saw the gold plates. counting Joseph Smith himself, that makes a total of 12 witnesses. No court--not even in Alabama--could deny this record. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine It is on trialand is FOUND WANTING!Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Have you TRIED that Spirit Baline? The scripture says TRY THEM! PUT THEM ON TRIAL That is the simple fact. I do not have to prove anything. You choose to ignore the scriptures to your own Demise! The reason being is you do not want to give up your faith. You know that JOe the Prophets the Church will not stand simple scrutiny no less a Trial! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After
Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able?
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? There you go a perfect picture of LDS Kindergarten Theology (Ho Hum--just another putdown to save Kevin's otherwise falling face.--Blaine)Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? Blaine Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!! (:) Maybe you missed this: No comment? taking the fifth? Holy Bible says God is a SPIRIT JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Blaine: Yeah, I know this passage, but it is to be understood in connection with all the rest of the passages dealing with God--for instance, Jesus, said, "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It is obvious from this he was a person of flesh and bones upon his resurrection--not a spirit--he even said so plainly. Also, Mary Magdalene tried to embrace him, which he would not allow. If he had been a spirit, she would not have been able to see him in the first place. We are not primarily bodies with a spirit, we are primarily a spirit with a body.Jesus said, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. He was referring to the ! temple of his spirit--his body. But primarily, all persons are spirits, just clothed with flesh and bones. So, it is appropriate to refer to us as spirits--and to God as a spirit, as well. When I looked for a wife, I wanted one who was a "kindred spirit." She has a body, but calling her a spirit is just a manner of speaking. BoM says God is a Spirit Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? Blaine: you have to take this in the context of the entire story--it is a story about a Nephite learned in the ways of God (Aaron) talking with an ignorant Lamanite king, who referrred to God as the "Great Spirit." Aaron was more or less trying to speak the same language, so as to be understood by the king, and so used the same wording. Alma 31:15 we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. Blaine: The above words were spoken by some Zoramites, who were apostates from the Nephite religion,as they stood in a tower in the center of their synagogue. Again, you have to read the story to understand the context. This was actually an example of what was NOT the doctrine being taught by the true believers, the Nephites. God is INVISIBLE (spirits are invisible) 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Blaine: He is always invisible, whether in the body or no, unless he wants to appear visibly. Moses saw him standing with his back to him, before hehad taken a body--Godwas a spirit at that time (Prior to being born in the flesh). But even as a spirit,Moses saw him--spirits can be seen under the right conditions. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw God as aglorified spirit, and could not look upon him without being transfigured. But he could see Satan (also a spirit)with his natural eyes.Also, in the Book of Ether, it is recorded that the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, around the time of the Tower of Babel. This is very explicit. It says: "Behold, this body which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit. And even as I appear unto thee in the spirit, will I appear unto m
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? I would welcome that event. But in the meantimeI will revel in all the conversions right outside the SLC Temple gates. See you in April Blaine. Blaine: Hpw many is "all the conversions, Kevin? Exactly how many.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine Borrowman wrote: Blaine You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. FEAR is the opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world. Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst it. There are now Mormon temples all over the South, doesn't this concern the baptists?Presently, there are temples in: Tennessee: Nashville and Memphas; North Carolina: Raleigh; South Carolina: Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham; Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta; Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio; Virginia: Washington DC Hmmm., maybe the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their neighbors!! LOL === C'mon Blaine. If a Mormon missionary ever got a handle on the truth, he would stop being a Morman and repent. As for the Mormon temples spreading through the south like fire ant hills, it is no surprise. We are told that in the last days, there will be a great falling away. One day soon, the Father is going to turn to the Son, and say,"Go get 'em". When that happens, it will be too late to change, so I suggest that as soon as you get those DNA results back, you put all this Mormon stuff behind you and be born again. If you did, Kevin would have to embrace you as a brother. You could become a wealthy man just selling tickets to that event.Think about it.Terry What you Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Kevin wrote: Did you finish Aesop's yet? Blaine: I guess that is your best shot for answers to actual Bible scripture, which I seem to know better than you do, huh Kevin?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Blaine, The Mormon shuffle, again, Blaine. The "other flock" happens to be the gentiles. Do you have any supporting biblical evidence that states otherwise? You see, this is nothing more than one of the LDS prooftexts I often complain about. This type of prooftexting really slanders the Word and attempts to deceive those to whom it is spewed. Blaine: LOL!! What I hear you spewing is one more of the traditional doctrines inculcated in Protestants without biblical support, being the doctrines of men and not God. The Bible says that the gospel was not taken to the Gentiles until Peter received the revelation to do so.(Acts 10:28) Christ never preached to the Gentiles. They NEVER heard his voice, unless they happened to be around when he taught the House of Israel--ONLY! As he said when a Canaanite woman (a gentile) came begginghim to heal her daughter, who was vexed with devils: (Matt 15: 23-26) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him,saying, "send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel."Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." He answered her, and said, "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." Of course he had mercy on her and healed her daughter, but only because she showed such great faith in him. This is the ONLY exception to the rule he otherwise strictly adhered to throughout his ministry. Can you show evidence otherwise? You see, there were Jews and Gentiles, from the Jewish perspective. And, to whiom was Jesus speaking? Go back to Jn 9:40 to see that. The Pharisees. And who did they represent? The jews. And who was the "other flock"? That is, who besides the Jews was the gospel given to? The gentiles. Blaine: Eventually, the gospel was given to the Gentiles, but only after the Lord expired on the cross, andthe revelation was given to Peter to do so. The Gentiles never heard the Lord Preach--yet he says, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice . . . He was revealing his determination to seek out the lost tribes of Israel as they were then scattered throughout the world--in Ireland, in England, on the isles of the sea, and in the Americas!! The Hawaaians called him LONO, the Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana--the Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl, the Aztecs called him Viracocha, etc, etc, I could show many references for this phenomenon. In all cases he was described as being a tall white man with a beard who was reverenced by those who met him. He promised to return in the future and bring world peace and prosperity. The Hopis had even been taught certain handshakes with which to identify him when he returned. (More about this later). Get on Google. Read about Captain Cook's experiences among the Pacific Islanders, read about the Spanish Conquistadors when they entered Mexico, read! about Easter Island and the stone statues, read The Kon Tiki Expedition, by Thor Hyerdahl. Read The Hopi by (I will have to find this book around the house for the author), read, Tales of the Seven Seas (likewise, for the author). I am serious and sincere. You have been led astray long enough. I think it is time the truth got told about what has been going on in the world outside the dogmas of the Protestant tradition. Kevin, you can stop weeping now...I solved the "mystery". LOL Perry No, don't wipe the tears away yet, Kevin. I have just begun...to enlighten your darkened mind. LOL Blaine From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:12:01 -0700 Blaine: Read this Kevin, and weep: What about the passag
Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able?
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? Blaine Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!! (:) Maybe you missed this: No comment? taking the fifth? Holy Bible says God is a SPIRIT JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Blaine: Yeah, I know this passage, but it is to be understood in connection with all the rest of the passages dealing with God--for instance, Jesus, said, "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It is obvious from this he was a person of flesh and bones upon his resurrection--not a spirit--he even said so plainly. Also, Mary Magdalene tried to embrace him, which he would not allow. If he had been a spirit, she would not have been able to see him in the first place. We are not primarily bodies with a spirit, we are primarily a spirit with a body.Jesus said, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. He was referring to the temple of his spirit--his body. But primarily, all persons are spirits, just clothed with flesh and bones. So, it is appropriate to refer to us as spirits--and to God as a spirit, as well. When I looked for a wife, I wanted one who was a "kindred spirit." She has a body, but calling her a spirit is just a manner of speaking. BoM says God is a Spirit Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? Blaine: you have to take this in the context of the entire story--it is a story about a Nephite learned in the ways of God (Aaron) talking with an ignorant Lamanite king, who referrred to God as the "Great Spirit." Aaron was more or less trying to speak the same language, so as to be understood by the king, and so used the same wording. Alma 31:15 we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. Blaine: The above words were spoken by some Zoramites, who were apostates from the Nephite religion,as they stood in a tower in the center of their synagogue. Again, you have to read the story to understand the context. This was actually an example of what was NOT the doctrine being taught by the true believers, the Nephites. God is INVISIBLE (spirits are invisible) 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Blaine: He is always invisible, whether in the body or no, unless he wants to appear visibly. Moses saw him standing with his back to him, before hehad taken a body--Godwas a spirit at that time (Prior to being born in the flesh). But even as a spirit,Moses saw him--spirits can be seen under the right conditions. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw God as aglorified spirit, and could not look upon him without being transfigured. But he could see Satan (also a spirit)with his natural eyes.Also, in the Book of Ether, it is recorded that the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, around the time of the Tower of Babel. This is very explicit. It says: "Behold, this body which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit. And even as I appear unto thee in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh." (Ether 3:16) Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God John 1:18 No ma! n hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Jesus DECLARED him Jn 1:18 (not "shown" as in a body) How did He declare him? 1) MESSAGE Jn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 2) WORKS Jn 5:19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Blaine: Jesus also said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine You are probably right about one thing, the Southern Baptists would not believe anything they had not heard inculcated into their minds by tradition, repetition,and the fear of the boys with the hoods who burn crosses in your front yard if you disagree with them or have a little color to your skin.(:) But that has nothing to do with the truth, which I would represent as being far whiter than the sheets the good ol' boysuse to cover their sinful depradations against those whose come-uppance they most dreadfully fear. FEAR is the opposite of FAITH.FEAR is the principle upon which the devil and his hosts operate throughout the world. Mormon missionaries are not afraid to speak the truth in the South or anywhere else, and the result is that the church grows despite the devil and his hoststrying to intimidateagainst it. There are now Mormon temples all over the South, doesn't this concern the baptists?Presently, there are temples in: Tennessee: Nashville and Memphas; North Carolina: Raleigh; South Carolina: Columbia; Alabama: Birmingham; Kentucky: Louiseville; Florida: Orlando; Georgia: Atlanta; Missouri: St. Louis; Texas: Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio; Virginia: Washington DC Hmmm., maybe the Baptists should fear!!! But on the other hand, they no longer have to travel to Salt Lake City to try to convert the Mormons--they can now do it in their own backyards!! With their neighbors!! LOL - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine, the number of witnesses is impressive...but the book is a fraud, so why would anyone believe the witnesses, or even that there were witnesses. Show up in any court in the south and say "I'm a Mormon and the book of Mormon says there were 12 witnesses, so it is true", and you will quickly find out what the Southern Baptists believe. You can't use a false document to prove itself! Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:26:14 -0700 Blaine: The problem is, you didn't give it a fair trial. In any court in America (most courts, except maybe in Southern states where all those Baptists hang out--lol), the testimony of two witnesses is enough to prove innocence--or guilt. The BoM has three witnesses who saw the angel, the gold plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters (Urim and thummim), and the compass used by Lehi and his group to guide them to the Promised Land, called the Liahona--plus eight more witnesses who saw the gold plates. counting Joseph Smith himself, that makes a total of 12 witnesses. No court--not even in Alabama--could deny this record. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine It is on trial and is FOUND WANTING! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Have you TRIED that Spirit Baline? The scripture says TRY THEM! PUT THEM ON TRIAL That is the simple fact. I do not have to prove anything. You choose to ignore the scriptures to your own Demise! The reason being is you do not want to give up your faith. You know that JOe the Prophets the Church will not stand simple scrutiny no less a Trial! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After JS learned the language of the Nephites, he ceased using the Urim and Thummim, depending mostly on inspiration to tell him if his own interpretations were correct. Have you ever considered that the whole thing was a sad joke? Not a crystal ball? What was it there for then? Who taught JOe to read the ball or writing? Where did the writing come from? Did it just app
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Blaine, The Mormon shuffle, again, Blaine. The "other flock" happens to be the gentiles. Do you have any supporting biblical evidence that states otherwise? You see, this is nothing more than one of the LDS prooftexts I often complain about. This type of prooftexting really slanders the Word and attempts to deceive those to whom it is spewed. Blaine: LOL!! What I hear you spewing is one more of the traditional doctrines inculcated in Protestants without biblical support, being the doctrines of men and not God. The Bible says that the gospel was not taken to the Gentiles until Peter received the revelation to do so.(Acts 10:28) Christ never preached to the Gentiles. They NEVER heard his voice, unless they happened to be around when he taught the House of Israel--ONLY! As he said when a Canaanite woman (a gentile) came begginghim to heal her daughter, who was vexed with devils: (Matt 15: 23-26) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him,saying, "send her away; for she crieth after us." But he answered and said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel."Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." He answered her, and said, "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." Of course he had mercy on her and healed her daughter, but only because she showed such great faith in him. This is the ONLY exception to the rule he otherwise strictly adhered to throughout his ministry. Can you show evidence otherwise? You see, there were Jews and Gentiles, from the Jewish perspective. And, to whiom was Jesus speaking? Go back to Jn 9:40 to see that. The Pharisees. And who did they represent? The jews. And who was the "other flock"? That is, who besides the Jews was the gospel given to? The gentiles. Blaine: Eventually, the gospel was given to the Gentiles, but only after the Lord expired on the cross, andthe revelation was given to Peter to do so. The Gentiles never heard the Lord Preach--yet he says, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice . . . He was revealing his determination to seek out the lost tribes of Israel as they were then scattered throughout the world--in Ireland, in England, on the isles of the sea, and in the Americas!! The Hawaaians called him LONO, the Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana--the Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl, the Aztecs called him Viracocha, etc, etc, I could show many references for this phenomenon. In all cases he was described as being a tall white man with a beard who was reverenced by those who met him. He promised to return in the future and bring world peace and prosperity. The Hopis had even been taught certain handshakes with which to identify him when he returned. (More about this later). Get on Google. Read about Captain Cook's experiences among the Pacific Islanders, read about the Spanish Conquistadors when they entered Mexico, read about Easter Island and the stone statues, read The Kon Tiki Expedition, by Thor Hyerdahl. Read The Hopi by (I will have to find this book around the house for the author), read, Tales of the Seven Seas (likewise, for the author). I am serious and sincere. You have been led astray long enough. I think it is time the truth got told about what has been going on in the world outside the dogmas of the Protestant tradition. Kevin, you can stop weeping now...I solved the "mystery". LOL Perry No, don't wipe the tears away yet, Kevin. I have just begun...to enlighten your darkened mind. LOL Blaine From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:12:01 -0700 Blaine: Read this Kevin, and weep: What about the passage in your dearly beloved Bible, that says, (Jesus speaking) "And other sheep I have , which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. " (John 10:16) Care to comment on what Jesus was talking about? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Were you reading Aesops again? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Somehow I imagined you as being a very hairy, dark and loathsome Italian type, with an oily skin and a bad case of acne, Kevin. (:) I am surprised you have no beard, and even more surprised you are fair enough to hav
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 12:21
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence
Discourages Mormons
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blaine: Read this Kevin, and weep:
What about the passage in your dearly beloved Bible, that says, (Jesus
speaking)
"And other sheep I have ,
which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear
my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John
10:16) Care to comment on what Jesus was talking
about? Blaine
I read it and rejoice Blaine because here he is referring to
theGentiles (and that's me). He was first (?) sent to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel
judyt
Blaine:
Where does it say that? He was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel--he said so himself--read it in Matt 15-24--"I am sent but to the
Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." That is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. The gospel did not go to the Gentiles until
after Jesus expired on the cross--note he said "I must bring," and "they
shall hear my voice." Neither happened during his ministry at any
time--please show chapter and verse where it says
otherwise. Please also note that he
said "the LOST sheep of the House of
Israel"-- referring to the ten tribes who had been led out of the land 700
years earlier by the Assyrians, and many Jews who had been taken to Babylon
during the Babylonian captivity about 600 years earlier. The Jews who
were in Jerusalem in his time were only a fraction of those who
neverreturned at all. They remained in foreign lands.Also
there were other dispersions, such as the onediscussed at length in the
Book of Mormon. The BoM tells all about his visit, as would be expected
if he is the God of all Israel, not just the God of the Jews in
Jerusalem. His new covenant had to be given to ALL of the House of
Israel. They were all included in the promises to receive
hisdeliverance from the Law of
Moses.There are evidences all
over the place if you will open up your heart and mind to see them. But
if you prefer to stick to the safe but unsound dogmas of the Protestant
tradition, I can't help you.
Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:23
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence
Discourages Mormons
Were you reading Aesops again?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Blaine: Somehow I imagined you as being
a very hairy, dark and loathsomeItalian type, with an oily skin and
a bad case of acne, Kevin.(:) I am surprised you
have no beard, and even more surprised you are fair enough to have
freckles, like myself. But read the book of Genesis, and you will
see that Jacob was pretty much hairless, while his twin brother Esau was
very hairy. Ring a bell? Not all Jews are hairy, huh? IN
fact, I happen to know a Jew, Victor was his first name, who had no
beard at all--at least not when we were 18 yrs old and in Basic training
in the USAF. He had dark hair, and a very clear, peachy
complexion. The BoM describes Mary, the mother of Jesus, as being
white and fair above all women--probably a beautiful blonde, or a very
fair redhead. Many Jews are not only white, but have blonde hair and
even freckles. You have to remember that th! e BoM people who came
from Jerusalem in 600 BC were a small select group. They may not
have been typical dark, hairy fellows like many Jews we see in New York,
or crying at the wailing wall. Barbara Streasand is a very fair Jew,
as are others I have seen--Danny Kay for another. Jesus was
supposedly described as having blue eyes and reddish blonde hair.
But, as to the American Indian, it is plainly
evident he has much oriental blood in him. That seems
undeniable. Yet, in many other ways, he seems to have something
else--he seems to have a heritage based upon a totally different religious
outlook.When the White man first arrived in the Americas, most
Indian Tribes seemed totally unfamiliar with the concept of property and
land ownership--this is in keeping with the BoM record that they lived the
United Order--had all things in common--for at least three generations
after being visited by Jesus Christ.
Which reminds me,how do you
account for the many legends among the Indian tribes of both North and
South America of being visited by a White God? The Hopi called him
the Lost White Brother, Pahana. The Aztecs called him Viracocha, and
the and Mayans called him
Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able?
Blaine: Is this your best shot Kevin--a put down? If you can't handle the truth, at least be a gentleman and admit it. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? There you go a perfect picture of LDS Kindergarten TheologyBlaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Nothing to respond to or not able? Blaine Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!! (:) Maybe you missed this: No comment? taking the fifth? Holy Bible says God is a SPIRIT JN 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Blaine: Yeah, I know this passage, but it is to be understood in connection with all the rest of the passages dealing with God--for instance, Jesus, said, "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." It is obvious from this he was a person of flesh and bones upon his resurrection--not a spirit--he even said so plainly. Also, Mary Magdalene tried to embrace him, which he would not allow. If he had been a spirit, she would not have been able to see him in the first place. We are not primarily bodies with a spirit, we are primarily a spirit with a body.Jesus said, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. He was referring to the ! temple of his spirit--his body. But primarily, all persons are spirits, just clothed with flesh and bones. So, it is appropriate to refer to us as spirits--and to God as a spirit, as well. When I looked for a wife, I wanted one who was a "kindred spirit." She has a body, but calling her a spirit is just a manner of speaking. BoM says God is a Spirit Alma 22:10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? Blaine: you have to take this in the context of the entire story--it is a story about a Nephite learned in the ways of God (Aaron) talking with an ignorant Lamanite king, who referrred to God as the "Great Spirit." Aaron was more or less trying to speak the same language, so as to be understood by the king, and so used the same wording. Alma 31:15 we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. Blaine: The above words were spoken by some Zoramites, who were apostates from the Nephite religion,as they stood in a tower in the center of their synagogue. Again, you have to read the story to understand the context. This was actually an example of what was NOT the doctrine being taught by the true believers, the Nephites. God is INVISIBLE (spirits are invisible) 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Blaine: He is always invisible, whether in the body or no, unless he wants to appear visibly. Moses saw him standing with his back to him, before hehad taken a body--Godwas a spirit at that time (Prior to being born in the flesh). But even as a spirit,Moses saw him--spirits can be seen under the right conditions. In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses saw God as aglorified spirit, and could not look upon him without being transfigured. But he could see Satan (also a spirit)with his natural eyes.Also, in the Book of Ether, it is recorded that the Brother of Jared saw the spirit body of Jesus Christ, around the time of the Tower of Babel. This is very explicit. It says: "Behold, this body which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit. And even as I appear unto thee in the s
Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come
Blaine: Since it is found in Malachi, an OT prophet, we must assume it to have been givenin support of the old covenant, since payment of tithes and offerings was definitely part of the law of Moses. The new covenant was to have been the order in which all things were had in common. However, since the early saints did not live this new order for long, and since it is clearly not being lived today except in a few isolated instances,and since the early latter-day saints were not able to live it, the law of the tithe was given by way of commandment, to be lived until such time as they (the latter-day saints) are able to once again take up their crosses and sacrifice worldly concerns to the fuller extant of being able to live the United Order, the order of Heaven, wherein all things are to behad in common.In such an order,all things will be commonly owned, and righteous men will be given authority to disburse it as they are inspired by the Holy Ghost. As you can no doubt see, this sort of order would be extremely difficult to live, as privately owned propertyis presently held to be a sacred and inviolable constitutional right. To give up that right would be to place trust in the righteousness of those judges who would have authority to disperse the property, and of course, that is the rub--most people would see fault in almost any dispersion, if they for some reason felt or thought there was special privilege being shown. It would take more faith than most have. So, the law of the tithe was reinstated among latter-day saints by way of commandment to be lived until such time as the Lord in his infinite wisdom sees fit to require the higher law again to be lived. The revelations are found in the DC 64:23; 85:3; 97:12; 119:4--see also Proverbs 3:9-10 Just for the record, while I believe most of my Bishops would be able to disperse property held in common righteously, I have had a couple Idid not have that much confidence in tobe able to live the United Order under their supervision. I would have been among the rebellious who found fault with how things were being apportioned out, I am pretty sure. However, the law of the tithe is, by comparison, easy for me to live. (:) - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come Blaine, is this old covenant or new covenant? Could things have changed between the old and the new? From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:37:48 -0700 Blaine: Malachi 3:-11 (Pay up or be cursed--its in your Bible) Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to recieve it. And I shall rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of Hosts. And all nations shall call you blessed; for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the Lord of Hosts. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come I find your LDS pay up or get Burnt up doctrine ABHORENT! Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: BLAINE Your report made it seem as if Mormons are under a great deal of pressure to pay their annual 10% tithe. I don't think there is much pressure, other than that of individual conscience, to pay tithes or other contributions. Pressure? NO Pressure. Pay up or Jesus is gonna burn you up! DAVEH: Hmmm.reminds me of the pressure we LDS folks get from some TTers, Kevin.. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster. _ Get business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/loudclear.armx -- "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 emai
Re: [TruthTalk] illusion? theory? theology? FAITH
Judy wrote: jt: If it's so simple why do you not explain it in a simple way? My Bible says that Passover was 13th thru 14th of Nisan and Bible notes say that Nisan could be March or April. So which of those two months was it in 33AD? In 2004 my calender says full moon is 5th March and 6th April. Since Nisan is either of these months there will not be a full moon on 13th thru 14th of Nisan this year or am I missing something? Blaine: You are missiing the facts that 1) the moon takes an average of 30 calendar days to complete a cycle, from new moon, to full moon, back to new moon again; 2) the Jewish month ALWAYS begins with the new moon; 3) starting with the new moon phase as day 1, the moon will reach full phase about half-way through its cycle of thirty days; and 4) the Passover beginson 14 Nisan--14 days after the new moon, or about half way through its cycle, which means the moon will have reached full phase (barely) at that time; and 5) a moon phase typically last about 3 days, which means on the Jewish calendar it would be at full phase on the 14, 15 and 16 Nisan. OK? (It was probably still at full phase on the day of the Lord's resurrection, 16 Nisan.) - Original Message - From: "Judy Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:55 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] illusion? theory? theology? FAITH From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: I say Jesus did not have the same fallen nature as the rest of us because this is the teaching of scripture. dm: I beg to differ with you here. The Scriptures teach that he had the same flesh as the rest of us, being born of the seed of David and the seed of Abraham. jt: He came in the "likeness" of man and when he returns hopefully he will find us in "his likeness or image" This does not say that he is us or that we are him. dm I've already posted all the Scriptures for you, but you just ignore them jt: I didn't ignore them, I read them but believe you are reading into the text something that is not there. dm: just like you ignore the simple calendar posts that lets us know that there was a full moon when the Lord was in the garden. jt: If it's so simple why do you not explain it in a simple way? My Bible says that Passover was 13th thru 14th of Nisan and Bible notes say that Nisan could be March or April. So which of those two months was it in 33AD? In 2004 my calender says full moon is 5th March and 6th April. Since Nisan is either of these months there will not be a full moon on 13th thru 14th of Nisan this year or am I missing something? Judy wrote: He came forth from God (by his own testimony) and was holy from the time of his birth. Why is it so difficult to believe that God is able to create a holy child in the womb of Mary? this in no way detracts from the fact that he was born of the woman. dm: I believe that Jesus was holy. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Jesus could be related to Adam like the rest of us and yet be holy? jt: Because he would not have been born holy, he would have been part of the fallen human race and ineligible to be the perfect sacrifice. His blood would have the taint of sin. dm: This in no way detracts from the fact that he was the son of God. jt: You may not see it but yes it does because if he was born with a carnal nature like ours he would have needed someone to sacrifice for him - as Job (a righteous man) said "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Job 14:4). judyt -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? inerrant Bible
spirit, which are God's 1 Cor. 7:5 fasting and 1 Cor. 10:28 for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof 1 Cor. 15:24 cometh 2 Cor. 4:14 by (should read with) Gal. 3:1 that ye should not obey the truth Gal. 3:17 in Christ Gal. 5:19 adultery Gal. 5:21 murders Eph. 5:9 Spirit (should read light) Eph. 5:30 of his flesh, and of his bones 2 Thess. 2:9 Even him 1 Tim. 3:16 God (should read who)* 1 Tim. 4:12 in spirit* 1 Tim. 6:5 from such withdraw thyself* 2 Tim. 3:3 without natural affection* Heb. 12:18 mount that might be touched and that burned with fire (should read fire that might be touched and burned)* Heb. 12:20 or thrust through with a dart* James 5:16 Confess your faults (should read Therefore confess your sins)* 1 Pet. 2:5 spiritual (before the word sacrifices) 1 Pet. 3:8 courteous (should read humble) 2 Pet. 1:1 God and our (should read our Lord and)* 1 John 3:16 of God 1 John 5:7 in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one 1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth 1 John 5:13 and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God Rev. 1:17 unto me, Fear not* Rev. 2:22 their (should read her)* Rev. 5:3 neither under the earth* Rev. 5:9 us (omitted by the Alexandrian Ms., one of the three oldest Mss. known) Rev. 5:10 us (should read them) we (should read they) Rev. 5:13 and under the earth* Rev. 6:2 to conquer (should read he conquered)* Rev. 9:4 neither any green thing* Rev. 9:13 the four horns of* Rev. 10:6 and the sea, and the things which are therein* Rev. 11:17 and art to come* Rev. 12:12 inhabiters of* of (before the words the sea) Rev. 14:5 before the throne of God* Rev. 14:12 here are they* Rev. 16:5 and shalt be (should read the holy)* Rev. 16:7 another out of* Rev. 16:11 and their sores* of their deeds* Rev. 16:17 from the throne* Rev. 18:22 of whatsoever craft he be* and the stone of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee* Rev. 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished* Rev. 21:24 of them which are saved* and honor* Rev. 21:26 and honor* Rev. 22:3 more* * Omitted by the Sinaitic Manuscript. These not thus marked are omitted by both the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts. The Epistles to Timothy, the latter part of Hebrews, and all of Revelation, are missing from the Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209, having been lost during the fifteen or more centuries since it was written. The Sinaitic Manuscript is perfect and complete and is the oldest known [complete] copy of the Scriptures, having been written (it is believed) in the year 331 A.D. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? King James had a large crew of scholars translate the best texts available. Each member of the crew checked other member's work. A large number of people who knew those old languages did the best translation that they could. All of the other translations were produced by scholars under similar conditions. Nobody knows language on the moroni plates, if they ever existed anywhere but in old Joe's mind. It seems to me that today's bible tranlations have a better claim on validity than Joe's nebulous claim to having perfectly translated plates which aren't available for others to examine. Joe's situation is similar to mohammed's situation; he was the only one to have access to the revelations brought to him, and nobody else had any means to check on him to see if his message was correct. I'll stick with my bible in just about any translation. It's certainly better than moroni's imaginary plates. vincent j. fulton On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:07:59 -0700 Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After JS learned the language of the Nephites, he ceased using the Urim and Thummim, depending mostly on inspiration to tell him if his own interpretations were correct. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ
Today is the 6th of March, and I just got to your
post, Kevin--I haven't heretofore seen anything worth responding to that I did
not respond to, but if I do, I will do the best I can to answer it in the amount
of time I allow myself each day for TT. NEVER jump to conclusions, and as
Terry (?) said, be careful, we will have to account for every idle word we
utter--or write, even if only on TT where anything goes!!
(:)
Blaine
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 6:58
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of
Christ
Blaine: I am not sure anyone knows
for sure. But choose any other passover, and the moon phase will be a
full moon. You need to do your homework on Jewish calendar, then you
will understand. I explained it, but . . .
Blaine is stuck on this one (MOON Post 1- MOON Post 2 MOON
Post 3)
Because he has such a backlog ofANTI - LDS posts that remain
UNANSWERED
It sure is tough to find an answer isn't it Blaine?
Shouldn't we just pray about it?Blaine Borrowman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blaine: I am not sure anyone knows for
sure. But choose any other passover, and the moon phase will be a full
moon. You need to do your homework on Jewish calendar, then you will
understand. I explained it, but . . .
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:31
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] The passion of
Christ
Passover for this year wasn't the question,
Can you tell me what day and what month Passover was held in
theyear 33 AD? judyt
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blaine: The Passover for the year 2004
begins on the eve of April 5,
and the actual Passover is the next day,
April 6. Go to the site address
I have shown below, input 6 April, 2004, and
it will show the moon phase
for that date.You may see for
yourselfa full moon shown.
Blaine
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/vphase.html
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:18
PM
Subject: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] The
passion of Christ
It's not a guess Blaine - it actuallycomes from the horses'
mouth as it
wasthe RCC who fixed these dates. The RCC were also in
control when both
Gregorian and Julian calenders were accepted. I must have
missed your
"full moon" message. Upon what do you base your belief?
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good guess, Judy, but as I have shown in a
recent post, the moon is always full on Passover.
Blaine
Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking
for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
Blaine: Somehow I imagined you as being a very hairy, dark and loathsomeItalian type, with an oily skin and a bad case of acne, Kevin.(:) I am surprised you have no beard, and even more surprised you are fair enough to have freckles, like myself. But read the book of Genesis, and you will see that Jacob was pretty much hairless, while his twin brother Esau was very hairy. Ring a bell? Not all Jews are hairy, huh? IN fact, I happen to know a Jew, Victor was his first name, who had no beard at all--at least not when we were 18 yrs old and in Basic training in the USAF. He had dark hair, and a very clear, peachy complexion. The BoM describes Mary, the mother of Jesus, as being white and fair above all women--probably a beautiful blonde, or a very fair redhead. Many Jews are not only white, but have blonde hair and even freckles. You have to remember that the BoM people who came from Jerusalem in 600 BC were a small select group. They may not have been typical dark, hairy fellows like many Jews we see in New York, or crying at the wailing wall. Barbara Streasand is a very fair Jew, as are others I have seen--Danny Kay for another. Jesus was supposedly described as having blue eyes and reddish blonde hair. But, as to the American Indian, it is plainly evident he has much oriental blood in him. That seems undeniable. Yet, in many other ways, he seems to have something else--he seems to have a heritage based upon a totally different religious outlook.When the White man first arrived in the Americas, most Indian Tribes seemed totally unfamiliar with the concept of property and land ownership--this is in keeping with the BoM record that they lived the United Order--had all things in common--for at least three generations after being visited by Jesus Christ. Which reminds me,how do you account for the many legends among the Indian tribes of both North and South America of being visited by a White God? The Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana. The Aztecs called him Viracocha, and the and Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl. This is also true of the Hawaiians, who called him Lono, and other Pacific Islanders had other names for him. You cannot ignore this--it does not smack of a cultural heritage like any Oriental peoples I ever heard of. You keep harping on my not answering some of your trap-type questions, how about this? " - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Blaine I need some advice I have a lot of freckles, I suppose that comes from my Irish heritage. I also have very fine hair and can not grow a THICK THICK Beard. I noticed that Jews have NO PROBLEM growing beards. My beard problem probably stems from some American Indian heritage in my family tree. I find that ALL INDIANShave pitiful beards. It is laughable like 4 scraggly hairs on the chin. Do you knowof ANY Indians that can grow thick beards? Picture in your mind a cherokee with a Full beard it is so wierd it is funny. What other groups or races have this problem? I guess you really do not need a PHD in Biology to figure out that Indians are NOT Descendants of Jews!The BoM has it all wrong and is a false history.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The Indian languages all show traces of Hebrew, but are otherwise very different--what does that prove? Just that 2500 yrs have gone by, and languages change at a rapid pace. The same with genetic similarities.It is called genetic drift. Ho hum. Now let's consider the effects of genetic drift on a population. In the short term, over a few generations, we would expect allele frequencies to increase and decrease in a random, unpredictable way, as a result of genetic drift. In the longer term, the main result of genetic drift is loss of genetic variation. This occurs because over time, at random, there will be a generation in which one allele (which has become rare by chance) will not get passed at all to the next generation. Given enough time, this will always be the effect of genetic drift -- by chance, alleles will be lost. The smaller the population, since genetic drift has a stronger effect in small populations, the more quickly genetic variation will be lost. Genetic drift also results in different populations becoming genetically different from each other because by chance, different alleles will become fixed in different populations. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons NO COMMENT!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re: [TruthTalk] Astronomers pinpoint time and date of crucifixion
VERY Good Judy, I love this kind of stuff. Beautiful!! Thanx. I will save this and or print it. Blaine - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 6:31 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Astronomers pinpoint time and date of crucifixion More experts with a different date and time. How is it so simple? jt Astronomers 'pinpoint time and date of crucifixion and resurrection' Two Romanian astronomers say their research shows Christ died at 3:00 pm on a Friday, and rose again at 4:00 am on a Sunday.Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu Oproiu claim to have pinpointed the exact time and date of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.The pair, from the Astronomic Observatory Institute in Cluj, Romania, say Jesus died at 3:00 pm on Friday, 3 April, 33 AD, and rose again at 4:00 am on Sunday, 5 April.They used a computer program to check biblical references against historical astronomical data.They said the New Testament stated that Jesus died the day after the first night with a full moon, after the vernal equinox.Using data gathered on the stars between 26 and 35 AD they established that in those nine years, the first full moon after the vernal equinox was registered twice - on Friday, 7 April, 30 AD, and on Friday, 3 April, 33 AD.They were convinced the date of the crucifixion was 33 AD, and not 30 AD, because records showed a solar eclipse, as depicted in the Bible at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, occurred in Jerusalem that year.SOURCEAnanova
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine: The problem is, you didn't give it a fair trial. In any court in America (most courts, except maybe in Southern states whereall thoseBaptists hang out--lol), the testimony of two witnesses is enough to prove innocence--or guilt. The BoM has three witnesses who saw the angel, the gold plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters (Urim and thummim), and the compass used by Lehi and his group to guide them to the Promised Land, called the Liahona--plus eight more witnesses who saw the gold plates. counting Joseph Smith himself, that makes a total of 12 witnesses. No court--not even in Alabama--could deny this record. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine It is on trialand is FOUND WANTING!Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Have you TRIED that Spirit Baline? The scripture says TRY THEM! PUT THEM ON TRIAL That is the simple fact. I do not have to prove anything. You choose to ignore the scriptures to your own Demise! The reason being is you do not want to give up your faith. You know that JOe the Prophets the Church will not stand simple scrutiny no less a Trial! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After JS learned the language of the Nephites, heceased using the Urim and Thummim, depending mostly on inspiration to tell him if his own interpretations were correct. Have you ever considered that the whole thing was a sad joke? Not a crystal ball? What was it there for then? Who taught JOe to read the ball or writing? Where did the writing come from? Did it just appear, out of nothing? I do not think inspiration is the word it would be revelation. JOe relied on SPIRITual Revelation for a check on whether it was so. The question is who was the Spirit he communicated with? 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Blaine: This scripture (1 John 4:1) admits the Possibility of spirits that are not of God, but is general in application. We need to realize that you are the one actually making the application, Kevin, and so far we have seen no conclusive evidence your application is the correct one. It seems to me you are just BUCKING UP against the goad, or kicking against the pricks, as the Lord said to Saul. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? He had the help of seducing spirits, an fallen angel or two and a crystal ball in his hat.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Oh darn! I only wrote one paragraph, and already aninconsistency!! I don't know how that Joseph Smith made it through so manypages and made the story so consistent!!- Original Message - From: "Terry Cl
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
Blaine: Read this Kevin, and weep: What about the passage in your dearly beloved Bible, that says, (Jesus speaking) "And other sheep I have , which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16) Care to comment on what Jesus was talking about? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Were you reading Aesops again?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Somehow I imagined you as being a very hairy, dark and loathsomeItalian type, with an oily skin and a bad case of acne, Kevin.(:) I am surprised you have no beard, and even more surprised you are fair enough to have freckles, like myself. But read the book of Genesis, and you will see that Jacob was pretty much hairless, while his twin brother Esau was very hairy. Ring a bell? Not all Jews are hairy, huh? IN fact, I happen to know a Jew, Victor was his first name, who had no beard at all--at least not when we were 18 yrs old and in Basic training in the USAF. He had dark hair, and a very clear, peachy complexion. The BoM describes Mary, the mother of Jesus, as being white and fair above all women--probably a beautiful blonde, or a very fair redhead. Many Jews are not only white, but have blonde hair and even freckles. You have to remember that th! e BoM people who came from Jerusalem in 600 BC were a small select group. They may not have been typical dark, hairy fellows like many Jews we see in New York, or crying at the wailing wall. Barbara Streasand is a very fair Jew, as are others I have seen--Danny Kay for another. Jesus was supposedly described as having blue eyes and reddish blonde hair. But, as to the American Indian, it is plainly evident he has much oriental blood in him. That seems undeniable. Yet, in many other ways, he seems to have something else--he seems to have a heritage based upon a totally different religious outlook.When the White man first arrived in the Americas, most Indian Tribes seemed totally unfamiliar with the concept of property and land ownership--this is in keeping with the BoM record that they lived the United Order--had all things in common--for at least three generations after being visited by Jesus Christ. Which reminds me,how do you account for the many legends among the Indian tribes of both North and South America of being visited by a White God? The Hopi called him the Lost White Brother, Pahana. The Aztecs called him Viracocha, and the and Mayans called him Quetzalcoatl. This is also true of the Hawaiians, who called him Lono, and other Pacific Islanders had other names for him. You cannot ignore this--it does not smack of a cultural heritage like any Oriental peoples I ever heard of. You keep harping on my not answering some of your trap-type questions, how about this? " - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons Blaine I need some advice I have a lot of freckles, I suppose that comes from my Irish heritage. I also have very fine hair and can not grow a THICK THICK Beard. I noticed that Jews have NO PROBLEM growing beards. My beard problem probably stems from some American Indian heritage in my family tree. I find that ALL INDIANShave pitiful beards. It is laughable like 4 scraggly hairs on the chin. Do you knowof ANY Indians that can grow thick beards? Picture in your mind a cherokee with a Full beard it is so wierd it is funny. What other groups or races have this problem? I guess you really do not need a PHD in Biology to figure out that Indians are NOT Descendants of Jews!The BoM has it all wrong and is a false history.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The Indian languages all show traces of Hebrew, but are otherwise very different--what does that prove? Just that 2500 yrs have gone by, and languages change at a rapid pace. The same with genetic similarities.It is called genetic drift. Ho hum. Now let's consider the effects of genetic drift on a population. In the short term, over a few generations, we would expect allele frequencies to increase and decrease in a random, unpredictable way, as a result of genetic drift. In the longer term,
Re: [TruthTalk] illusion? theory? theology? FAITH
Glad to be of help--I teach sunday school tomorrow, all boys in the class for some reason, subbing for the regular teacher--hope the boys are good. I better get studying. Blaine - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:01 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] illusion? theory? theology? FAITH OK Blaine, This is simple enough for even me to understand. Thanks for the input. Judyt Blaine: You are missiing the facts that 1) the moon takes an average of 30 calendar days to complete a cycle, from new moon, to full moon, back to new moon again; 2) the Jewish month ALWAYS begins with the new moon; 3) starting with the new moon phase as day 1, the moon will reach full phase about half-way through its cycle of thirty days; and 4) the Passover beginson 14 Nisan--14 days after the new moon, or about half way through its cycle, which means the moon will have reached full phase (barely) at that time; and 5) a moon phase typically last about 3 days, which means on the Jewish calendar it would be at full phase on the 14, 15 and 16 Nisan. OK? (It was probably still at full phase on the day of the Lord's resurrection, 16 Nisan.) From: "Judy Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: jt: If it's so simple why do you not explain it in a simple way? My Bible says that Passover was 13th thru 14th of Nisan and Bible notes say that Nisan could be March or April. So which of those two months was it in 33AD? In 2004 my calender says full moon is 5th March and 6th April. Since Nisan is either of these months there will not be a full moon on 13th thru 14th of Nisan this year or am I missing something?
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? inerrant Bible
uot;)Acts 8:37 This entire verseActs 9:31 churches (should read "church") were (should read "was")Acts 15:32 and confirmed them*Acts 18:5 pressed in the spirit (should read "earnestly occ! upied with theWord")Acts 18:21 I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem:butRom. 3:22 and upon allRom. 6:12 it inRom. 7:6 that being dead (should read "being dead to that")Rom. 8:26 for usRom. 11:6 But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise workis no more workRom. 14:6 and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth notregard it1 Cor. 2:1 testimony (should read "mystery")1 Cor. 6:20 and in your spirit, which are God's1 Cor. 7:5 fasting and1 Cor. 10:28 for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof1 Cor. 15:24 cometh2 Cor. 4:14 by (should read "with")Gal. 3:1 that ye should not obey the truthGal. 3:17 in ChristGal. 5:19 adulteryGal. 5:21 murdersEph. 5:9 Spirit (should read "light")Eph. 5:30 of his flesh, and of his bones2 Thess. 2:9 Even him1 Tim. 3:16 G! od (should read "who")*1 Tim. 4:12 in spirit*1 Tim. 6:5 from such withdraw thyself*2 Tim. 3:3 without natural affection*Heb. 12:18 mount that might be touched and that burned with fire (shouldread "fire that might be touched and burned")*Heb. 12:20 or thrust through with a dart*James 5:16 Confess your faults (should read "Therefore confess yoursins")*1 Pet. 2:5 spiritual (before the word "sacrifices")1 Pet. 3:8 courteous (should read "humble")2 Pet. 1:1 God and our (should read "our Lord and")*1 John 3:16 of God1 John 5:7 in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and thesethree are one1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth1 John 5:13 and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of GodRev. 1:17 unto me, Fear not*Rev. 2:22 their (should read "her")*Rev. 5:3 neither under the earth*Rev. 5:9 us (omitted b! y the Alexandrian Ms., one of the three oldest Mss.known)Rev. 5:10 us (should read "them") we (should read "they")Rev. 5:13 and under the earth*Rev. 6:2 to conquer (should read "he conquered")*Rev. 9:4 neither any green thing*Rev. 9:13 the four horns of*Rev. 10:6 and the sea, and the things which are therein*Rev. 11:17 and art to come*Rev. 12:12 inhabiters of* of (before the words "the sea")Rev. 14:5 before the throne of God*Rev... 14:12 here are they*Rev. 16:5 and shalt be (should read "the holy")*Rev. 16:7 another out of*Rev. 16:11 and their sores* of their deeds*Rev. 16:17 from the throne*Rev. 18:22 of whatsoever craft he be* and the stone of a millstone shallbe heard no more at all in thee*Rev. 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousandyears were finished*Rev. 21:24 of them which are saved* and honor*R! ev. 21:26 and honor*Rev. 22:3 more** Omitted by the Sinaitic Manuscript. These not thus marked are omittedby both the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts. The Epistles to Timothy,the latter part of Hebrews, and all of Revelation, are missing from theVatican Manuscript, No. 1209, having been lost during the fifteen or morecenturies since it was written. The Sinaitic Manuscript is perfect andcomplete and is the oldest known [complete] copy of the Scriptures,having been written (it is believed) in the year 331 A.D.- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:51 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? King James had a large crew of scholars translate the best texts available. Each member of the crew checked other member's work. A large number of people who knew those old languages did the best translation that they could. All of the other translations were produced by scholars under similar conditions. Nobody knows language on the moroni plates, if they ever existed anywhere but in old Joe's mind. It seems to me that today's bible tranlations have a better claim on validity than Joe's nebulous claim to having perfectly translated plates which aren't available for others to examine. Joe's situation is similar to mohammed's situation; he was the only one to have access to the revelations brought to him, and nobody else had any means to check on him to see if his message was correct. I'll stick with my bible in just about any translation. It's certainly better than moroni's imaginary plates. vincent j. fulton On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:07:59 -0700 "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: Bl! aine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the r
Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ
Blaine: I am not sure anyone knows for
sure. But choose any other passover, and the moon phase will be a full
moon. You need to do your homework on Jewish calendar, then you will
understand. I explained it, but . . .
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:31
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] The passion of
Christ
Passover for this year wasn't the question,
Can you tell me what day and what month Passover was held in
theyear 33 AD? judyt
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blaine: The Passover for the year 2004
begins on the eve of April 5,
and the actual Passover is the next day, April
6. Go to the site address
I have shown below, input 6 April, 2004, and it
will show the moon phase
for that date.You may see for
yourselfa full moon shown.
Blaine
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/vphase.html
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:18
PM
Subject: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] The
passion of Christ
It's not a guess Blaine - it actuallycomes from the horses' mouth
as it
wasthe RCC who fixed these dates. The RCC were also in control
when both
Gregorian and Julian calenders were accepted. I must have missed
your
"full moon" message. Upon what do you base your belief?
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good guess, Judy, but as I have shown in a
recent post, the moon is always full on Passover.
Blaine
Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons
Blaine: The Indian languages all show traces of Hebrew, but are otherwise very different--what does that prove? Just that 2500 yrs have gone by, and languages change at a rapid pace. The same with genetic similarities.It is called genetic drift. Ho hum. Now let's consider the effects of genetic drift on a population. In the short term, over a few generations, we would expect allele frequencies to increase and decrease in a random, unpredictable way, as a result of genetic drift. In the longer term, the main result of genetic drift is loss of genetic variation. This occurs because over time, at random, there will be a generation in which one allele (which has become rare by chance) will not get passed at all to the next generation. Given enough time, this will always be the effect of genetic drift -- by chance, alleles will be lost. The smaller the population, since genetic drift has a stronger effect in small populations, the more quickly genetic variation will be lost. Genetic drift also results in different populations becoming genetically different from each other because by chance, different alleles will become fixed in different populations. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DNA Evidence Discourages Mormons NO COMMENT!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you Mormon boys aware of this? MORMONS LEAVE BECAUSE OF DNA The following is from Calvary Contender, March 2004: Recent DNA evidence questioning the accuracy of Mormon history is providing an open door to evangelism of Mormons. The Book of Mormon describes how Israelites emigrated to the Americas 2,600 years ago, with the now extinct Lamanites and Nephites becoming the ancestors of American Indians. But anthropologists say there is no match of Jewish DNA with that of American Indians. An inaccurate Book of Mormon creates questions about the foundation of Mormon teaching (2/04 Christianity Today). Reportedly about 300 people have left Mormonism partly because of evidence presented from interviewing eight scientists including a Mormon scholar. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
How about if we just put the Book of Mormon on trial, Kevin? OK? Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Have you TRIED that Spirit Baline? The scripture says TRY THEM! PUT THEM ON TRIAL That is the simple fact. I do not have to prove anything. You choose to ignore the scriptures to your own Demise! The reason being is you do not want to give up your faith. You know that JOe the Prophets the Church will not stand simple scrutiny no less a Trial! Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After JS learned the language of the Nephites, heceased using the Urim and Thummim, depending mostly on inspiration to tell him if his own interpretations were correct. Have you ever considered that the whole thing was a sad joke? Not a crystal ball? What was it there for then? Who taught JOe to read the ball or writing? Where did the writing come from? Did it just appear, out of nothing? I do not think inspiration is the word it would be revelation. JOe relied on SPIRITual Revelation for a check on whether it was so. The question is who was the Spirit he communicated with? 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Blaine: This scripture (1 John 4:1) admits the Possibility of spirits that are not of God, but is general in application. We need to realize that you are the one actually making the application, Kevin, and so far we have seen no conclusive evidence your application is the correct one. It seems to me you are just BUCKING UP against the goad, or kicking against the pricks, as the Lord said to Saul. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? He had the help of seducing spirits, an fallen angel or two and a crystal ball in his hat.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Oh darn! I only wrote one paragraph, and already aninconsistency!! I don't know how that Joseph Smith made it through so manypages and made the story so consistent!!- Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:10 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? I don't quite know how to respond,Blaine. I had always assumed thatjews WERE white Terry - Original Message - From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Wrong!! I have proof there were two old Jews of ancient vintageliving in Utah long before White man arrived!! Both had long beards, wore skull caps, and had prayer rugs!! One spoke yiddish, the other one was deaf and dumb, but he could read Hebrew as long as he had his spectacles. The really wierd part is he also had a battery driven quartz crystal watch, with the numbers in Aramaic. Blaine - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine,
Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ
Ha! That was perfect!! LOL Blaine - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ Judy wrote: Can you tell me what day and what month Passover was held in the year 33 AD? The 14th of Nisan. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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 passion of Christ
Blaine: No, I am judging you for being judgemental for me being judgemental for you being judgemental for me being judgemental. (:) - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ Are you Judging me for being Judgemental?Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, you are so holy and righteous, I sometimes wonder that you are still among the livng. Here is a little ditty you may have overlooked in becoming so holy and pure, however: Judge not that ye be not judged, for with whatsoever measure you give out, it shall be measured to you again." Or words to that effect Peace, and Shalom, Blaine - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ I am concerned for others, who may be decieved. I also believe in thedoctrine of separation. Ez 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. There are some thinking that revival is going to brake out. God would not use a profane person like Joe Smith nor Mel. Nor would he use anything tainted with a little bit of falsehood. God is HOLY HOLY HOLY. God doesnot eat the meat spit out the bones. What scripture teaches that?A Little leaven leavens the whole lump! So then faith cometh by seeing and seeing by the Celluloid? Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ The catholics are saying it is a "wonderful depiction of the Blessed Mothers ROLE in our Redemption" The saint (I forget her name right now ) that comes out to wipe Jesus face is a story from the Apocrypha miraculously (in this well known story to the RC faithful) the face of Jesus ends up impressed on this shroud. I read some catholic posts about how it was faithful to the stations of the cross. If all this is going on at a sub level does that mean the viewers are participating in the 14 stations? The story movie draws from the mystic visionary German Nun Emmerich. The script was developed by a Roman catholic priest. Sounds too religious for me.Why do I need celluloid when I have the Holy Scriptures that will never lead me astray? == Hey Kevin:Nothing wrong with playing it safe. You can't go wrong if you stick strictly to the scriptures, and the scriptures are really all that we need. By sticking strictly to God's Holy word, you may limit yourself somewhat, but everything you need to know is there in that one book. At one time, I would have fully supported your position. There was a time when I would listen to a preacher, or read a book, or see an earlier movie abour the Christ, and at the first inconsistancy, I would mentally turn off the preacher, or put down the book, or walk out of the movie. One evening when I was teaching a Bible class at the local prison, we got to discussing exactly that, and I got some of the best advice from one of the inmates that I ever got. He said, "Just eat the meat, and spit out the bones". That may not be the best advice for a new Christian who is not sure what to believe, but for a mature Christian who is certain of what he or she believes, it is excellent advice. If you are strong enough to shrug off the inconsistancies and move forward, you will often find a blessing. Sometimes you have to pick out more bones than others, but there is often a tasty morsel waiting when you are done. You are a mature Christian. No one is going to turn you into a Catholic. Think about that. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come
Blaine: Malachi 3:-11 (Pay up or be cursed--its in your Bible) Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to recieve it. And I shall rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of Hosts. And all nations shall call you blessed; for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the Lord of Hosts. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come I find your LDS pay up or get Burnt up doctrine ABHORENT!Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Deegan wrote: BLAINE Your report made it seem as if Mormons are under a great deal of pressure to pay their annual 10% tithe. I don't think there is much pressure, other than that of individual conscience, to pay tithes or other contributions. Pressure? NO Pressure. Pay up or Jesus is gonna burn you up!DAVEH: Hmmm.reminds me of the pressure we LDS folks get from some TTers, Kevin.. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come
Blaine: Tithing means 1/10th.That may seem a lot,but then, spiritual blessings are priceless. Try it Kevin, I challenge you to do that and see what happens. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come I don't have a problem with TITHING the problem is with some pipsqueak telling people Jesus is going to burn them up when he comes back unless they give TITHES to the aforementioned pipsqueak. Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin wrote: SAVED BY YOUR MONEY Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. DC 64:23. Thanks kevin, I was going to look this up, but you took the words out of my keyboard. Now, consider the poor widow who threw into the tithing coffers of her living, not of her excess. The Lord commended her for this, and said ittook great faith to do that.Paying money, a sacrifice, is a legitimate measure of one's true commitment and faith. If you haven't tried it Kevin, don't knock it. But again, I encourage you to try it, you might like it!! I have found the Lord really looks after you financially and spiritually if you keep this simple law. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come BLAINE Your report made it seem as if Mormons are under a great deal of pressure to pay their annual 10% tithe. I don't think there is much pressure, other than that of individual conscience, to pay tithes or other contributions. Pressure? NO Pressure. Pay up or Jesus is gonna burn you up! SAVED BY YOUR MONEY Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. DC 64:23. Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins. (Mormon 8:32) Jesus is a money grubber? This is NOT the God of the Bible! My God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, he does not need your money. He is the well spring of ALL our needs. He is our supply. Is it a TITHE or are you just paying DUES in Spanky's clubhouse? Are you on the Family plan or individual membership? http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1990.htm/ensign%20may%201990.htm/teach%20them%20correct%20principles.htm For years, Presidents of the Church have talked of and prayed for the day when tithes and offerings would qualify members for full participation in the Church LDS have an unpaid Clergy? And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church. (DC 42:71-73) And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith. And again, I say unto you, that if ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, provide for him food and raiment, and whatsoever thing he needeth to accomplish the work wherewith I have commanded him; (DC 43:12-13) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for clearing that up. I see now it is not a matter of pressure. It is just whether you are WORTHY or not! BLAINE God has said through his living prophet that if you are tithed at his coming, you will not be burned. Besides whatever else tithing may be, it is good fire insurance. Where did he say this? Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kingdom Come
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:18 PM Subject: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ It's not a guess Blaine - it actuallycomes from the horses' mouth as it wasthe RCC who fixed these dates. The RCC were also in control when both Gregorian and Julian calenders were accepted. I must have missed your "full moon" message. Upon what do you base your belief? Blaine: Full Moon? Hey you guys, there is ALWAYS a full moon on the night of the Passover!!! LOL You guys need to bone up on your calendar lore--the Jewish calendar is what is known as a solar-lunar calendar--Lunar, because each Jewish month begins with anew moon. Solar, because it is kept in sync with the Vernal (Spring) Equinox by adding a lunar month every six years. The first month of the calendar, called Nisan, begins with the new moon closest to the Vernal Equinox, and then the Passover is always held on 15 Nisan. Since a lunar month averages 30 days, this places the Passover smack dab in the middle of the month--when the moon is at full phase!! Always. Take my word for it, as an old Mormon boy who holds a temple recommend! LOL From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good guess, Judy, but as I have shown in a recent post, the moon is always full on Passover. Blaine From: Judy Taylor From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] making me wonder how the full moon figured in the story. It is historically accurate that there was a full moon on that night. Judy: It has nothing to dowith history; this comes fromastronomy and RC Liturgy. There are two different calendersand some disagreement so apparently they use astronomy/astrology to determine what day to celebrate Pascha (see below quotefrom a French RC theologian) quote: "The Christian Church, apparently from Apostolic times, began to fix the date of Pascha (Sunday) precisely in relation to light. For example, the feast of the Nativity of Christ (IV c.) was fixed as December 25, the day of the Winter solstice when sunlight begins to increase. (It was also a pagan feast for the same reason.) As for the sacred day of Pascha, here the moon also plays a part. The Sunday of the year that falls immediately after a full moon when it occurs not earlier than the vernal equinox is set aside as the feast of Pascha. Terry wrote: As He finishes praying, a large snake crawls up to him and He stomps on it's head. At that point, I was ready to walk out, but I am glad I stayed. Judy: The more I research the less I see a connection between this film and reality no matter what the masses say. Yesterday I thumbed througha photo/book of the film at Walmart; At Gethsemanescripture says "he fell on his face" so I would never picture him looking as though he were baying at a full moon. Also his stepping on a snake sounds 'hokey' to me. The concept is a spiritual one that this is inadequate to communicate. I was alsosurprised to seeJesus and his apostlessitting on chairs around a table like we use at what is supposed to be the Last Supper - even I know (without research) that they used to eat in a reclining position on pillows. The clothing isalso disturbingbecausewomen back then used to adorn themselves by wearingornaments on their clothing and their garments werevaried in color (remember Lydia in the book of Acts?). In the Gibsonmovie the women areall in black chador like robes looking like a bunch of nuns andthey have Jesuswearing this brown raggedy thing on his way to Golgotha. Where is the one piece tunic under the outer garment that he wore or even the purple robe they put on him with the crown of thorns at the Courthouse? Kevin thank you for your input - IMO there is a whole lot going on here that we areignorant ofbecause we have no frame of reference and we need to be Berean or we will wind up like Israel not knowing our right hand from the left and perishing for lack of knowledge. It's our God given responsiblity to check these things by the Word of God. Grace and Peace, Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky?
Blaine: The story about JS seeing the words cross the stone inside the hat was never substantiated. At best, I think he may have used the hat for effect, probably as a joke, and the rock inside was not a crystal ball--I have a photo of it, and it is opaque, with several holes in it. When Oliver Cowdery tried to translate, nothing happened. That was because he had not learned to read the writing by himself. After JS learned the language of the Nephites, heceased using the Urim and Thummim, depending mostly on inspiration to tell him if his own interpretations were correct. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? He had the help of seducing spirits, an fallen angel or two and a crystal ball in his hat.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: Oh darn! I only wrote one paragraph, and already aninconsistency!! I don't know how that Joseph Smith made it through so manypages and made the story so consistent!!- Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:10 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? I don't quite know how to respond,Blaine. I had always assumed thatjews WERE white Terry - Original Message - From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Wrong!! I have proof there were two old Jews of ancient vintageliving in Utah long before White man arrived!! Both had long beards, wore skull caps, and had prayer rugs!! One spoke yiddish, the other one was deaf and dumb, but he could read Hebrew as long as he had his spectacles. The really wierd part is he also had a battery driven quartz crystal watch, with the numbers in Aramaic. Blaine - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Old hebrew Coins found in Kentucky? Blaine, We have discussed on the group the fact that there is no archaeological ! evidence of early Hebrew civilizations in the Americas. However,I was searching an extensive index of treasure related magazines and found thefollowing entry: TYPE TITLE/AUTHORMG DATE PAGEKY ARCHAEOLOGY FOUND: ANCIENT HEBREW COINS/HENSON LTJAN 80 31 "LT" means "Lost Treasure Magazine". Do you know anything about thisreported find? I have not tried to get ahold of the article, sodo not knowthe nature of the find. I wonder if the archaeologist consdiered themoriginal, or relocated. BTW, I was raised in Kentucky! Do you think I am a Jaredite? :-) Perry I was also raised in Kentucky and can verify that there was an old Hebrew living there at the time. Mystery solved! Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you havea 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 youmay! 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 mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that! you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ
Blaine: The Passover for the year 2004 begins on the eve of April 5, and the actual Passover is the next day, April 6. Go to the site address I have shown below, input 6 April, 2004, and it will show the moon phase for that date.You may see for yourselfa full moon shown. Blaine http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/vphase.html - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:18 PM Subject: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ It's not a guess Blaine - it actuallycomes from the horses' mouth as it wasthe RCC who fixed these dates. The RCC were also in control when both Gregorian and Julian calenders were accepted. I must have missed your "full moon" message. Upon what do you base your belief? From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good guess, Judy, but as I have shown in a recent post, the moon is always full on Passover. Blaine From: Judy Taylor From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] making me wonder how the full moon figured in the story. It is historically accurate that there was a full moon on that night. Judy: It has nothing to dowith history; this comes fromastronomy and RC Liturgy. There are two different calendersand some disagreement so apparently they use astronomy/astrology to determine what day to celebrate Pascha (see below quotefrom a French RC theologian) quote: "The Christian Church, apparently from Apostolic times, began to fix the date of Pascha (Sunday) precisely in relation to light. For example, the feast of the Nativity of Christ (IV c.) was fixed as December 25, the day of the Winter solstice when sunlight begins to increase. (It was also a pagan feast for the same reason.) As for the sacred day of Pascha, here the moon also plays a part. The Sunday of the year that falls immediately after a full moon when it occurs not earlier than the vernal equinox is set aside as the feast of Pascha. Terry wrote: As He finishes praying, a large snake crawls up to him and He stomps on it's head. At that point, I was ready to walk out, but I am glad I stayed. Judy: The more I research the less I see a connection between this film and reality no matter what the masses say. Yesterday I thumbed througha photo/book of the film at Walmart; At Gethsemanescripture says "he fell on his face" so I would never picture him looking as though he were baying at a full moon. Also his stepping on a snake sounds 'hokey' to me. The concept is a spiritual one that this is inadequate to communicate. I was alsosurprised to seeJesus and his apostlessitting on chairs around a table like we use at what is supposed to be the Last Supper - even I know (without research) that they used to eat in a reclining position on pillows. The clothing isalso disturbingbecausewomen back then used to adorn themselves by wearingornaments on their clothing and their garments werevaried in color (remember Lydia in the book of Acts?). In the Gibsonmovie the women areall in black chador like robes looking like a bunch of nuns andthey have Jesuswearing this brown raggedy thing on his way to Golgotha. Where is the one piece tunic under the outer garment that he wore or even the purple robe they put on him with the crown of thorns at the Courthouse? Kevin thank you for your input - IMO there is a whole lot going on here that we areignorant ofbecause we have no frame of reference and we need to be Berean or we will wind up like Israel not knowing our right hand from the left and perishing for lack of knowledge. It's our God given responsiblity to check these things by the Word of God. Grace and Peace, Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Last words on Jesus had the same sinful flesh we have.
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 12:22 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Last words on Jesus had the same sinful flesh we have. Hi DaveH, We lost the image of God when Adam fell and Gen 5:3 teaches us that Seth who carried the godly seed was born in the image of Adam Blaine: This was a foreshadowing of things to come--when Jesus would be born in the exact image of his father. rather than the image of God and it goes downhill from there. All of us are all born with inherited iniquity from the Fathers and the walk of salvation is a lifetime walk of grace to return to the image we lost in the first Adam. Jesus is the ONLY exception. He said If you've seen me you've seen the Father and he said it before his death, burial, and resurrection. judyt From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I'm hesitant to jump into another's discussion, but it sure seems to me that the simple answer to this may be realized IF one considers that children may not be born with sinners, but rather they become sinners when they learn to discern right from wrong.and then choose wrong instead of right thereafter. IMHO, Jesus was born innocent, and remained sinless. On the other hand.we are born innocent, and make choices that cause us to sin. Judy Taylor wrote: You will need to prove it to me by the scriptures pastorbob, Yes he needed a flesh body but he didn't need for it to be fallen flesh. In fact, fallen flesh would disqualify him to be the only kind of sacrifice God the Father would accept, that is one without spot or blemish. The OT bulls and goats were part of fallen creation but they were temporary. For a start the bloodline of the first Adam would never be called holy Judyt From: Pastor Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Greetings jandg, everyone born of the flesh is born in sin. I think it was Vince who said something like That's right. That's why he had to get the same flesh in him. Grace and Truth, Robert -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- 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 passion of Christ
Blaine: Reread my post. It mentions that the Jewish calendar is a solar-lunar calendar, and I explained whatis meant by that. The current names of the months on the Jewish calendar came from the Babylonian captivity--prior to that, only the first month had a name, whichwas Abib (see Ex13:4; 23:15). It means, "a greening,' or "a green head,"referring to the greening of the barley heads that were to be used in the firstfruits offering. Now that same month is called Nisan. But the actual calculating of the calendar has not changed much. The Babylonians evidentally used a similar calendar. Peace, Shalom - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] The passion of Christ OK Blaine, I read your first message and you claim the Jewish Calender goes by the moon right? Only there are problems with this and the calender they use presently is more Babylonian than it is Jewish and involves the sun as well as the moon. I doubt Mel Gibson was consulting Jewish/Babylonian calenders. Keeping up with both Sun and Moon If the Jewish calendar only followed the Moon, it would get quickly out of step with the seasons, which follow the cycle of the Sun--the holidays would migrate and you might get Passover in the fall, Rosh Hashanah in the spring, Chanukkah in mid-summer. That is what happens in the Moslem calendar, which only follows the moon. Consider the month of Ramadan, when observant Moslems fast from sunrise to sundown. Ramadan this year was in early winter--the best time, because days are short, nights are long, your fasts are short too and you do not get too thirsty from heat. But wait 15 years! Then Ramadan will have migrated to mid-summer, when days are at their longest, the heat makes you quite thirsty (especially in countries like Arabia and Egypt), and fasting all day long is a much greater ordeal. But the ancient Babylonians found a way to keep up with both the moon and the sun. Their priests were excellent astronomers--helped, no doubt, by the clear skies in a country perched at the edge of the desert. (By the way, the Jewish Talmudic sage Mar Shmuel, who lived in Babylonia in the 3rd century, was also experienced in astronomy. He used to say "I am familiar with the pathways of the heavens as I am familiar with the pathways of [my home town] Nehard'a--except for the comet-star, I don't know what it is.") By the 9th century BCE, after centuries of observations, Babylonian astronomers concluded that in a cycle of 19 years of 12 lunar months each, if you added 7 more months, you returned almost exactly to the same season. Today this system is known as the Metonic cycle, because the Greek astronomer Meton introduced it in Athens in the year 432 BCE. However, the Babylonians already knew this From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good guess, Judy, but as I have shown in a recent post, the moon is always full on Passover. Blaine
