subject:"Re\: \[TruthTalk\] Sin \& Christian Perfection"

Am I the only one on TT that has a problem with the belief that Satan and Jesus are brothers? 

Blainer) Why not just show us where in the Bible the word "Trinity" is
at? It is either there or it is not there. 

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:23:12 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 To remove the Biblical word "Trinity" is compromise to get along with 
 a cult 
 that believes Jesus and Satan are brothers. I don't mind standing 
 alone.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Substance as in Joe Smith's semen deposited in other men's wives. Herein lies the historical evidence. Is semon a substance? 



DAVEH: Thanx for the great explanation, DavidM. Would you be so kind as to elaborate just a little more on the meaning of "substance" as used here. Thanx.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Here we go with the cult psychology again; another question? 

DaveL - How do you respond this this Bible verse?
DAVEH: I'm not offended by the cross. I sometimes think that Christians (and the RCC in particular) 'over use' the cross in their worship.but that is their (worship) business, and not particularly appealing to me. If you or anybody else wants to idolize the cross, it is your free will to do so. The cross Christians seemingly worship was constructed and erected to do one thing.kill my Savior. To me it was a work of those who rallied against God. But through his power, my Lord overcame the effect of the cross and was resurrected-from the tomb, I might adddo any Christians carry a small slab of stone about their necks to symbolize the stone rolled to the side as Jesus passed by as he arose from the dead?

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-28 Thread David Miller

DaveH wrote:
 To me it [the cross] was a work of those who rallied
 against  God.  But through his power, my Lord overcame
 the effect of the cross and was resurrected-

I think the Mormons teach contrary to the Bible about the cross and the
blood shed on the cross.  Was the cross part of God's plan, or was it the
enemy rising against God?  I can understand how you might see the enemy is
involved rising against God and your Savior, but surely you must understand
that this was part of God's plan to bring salvation.  I know that you have
been taught about the blood Jesus sweat in the Garden, but the blood shed on
the cross is what redeemed mankind, according to the Scriptures, which
cannot be broken.  Consider the following passages and their emphasis on
the cross:

For the preaching OF THE CROSS is to them that perish foolishness; but UNTO
US WHICH ARE SAVED IT IS THE POWER OF GOD.
(1Cor. 1:18)

And whosoever DOTH NOT BEAR HIS CROSS, and come after me, cannot be my
disciple.  (Luke 14:27)

But God forbid that I should GLORY, save IN THE CROSS of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.  (Gal
6:14)

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us; Having ABOLISHED IN HIS FLESH the
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in
himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile
both unto God in one body BY THE CROSS, having slain the enmity thereby.
(Eph 2:14-16)

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye
have us for an example. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and
now tell you even weeping, that they are the ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST:
Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in
their shame, who mind earthly things.) For our conversation is in heaven;
from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall
change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto
himself.  (Phi 3:17-21)

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; And,
having made peace THROUGH THE BLOOD OF HIS CROSS, by him to reconcile all
things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or
things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your
mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh
through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his
sight.  (Col 1:19-22)

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-28 Thread bborrow26

Blainer)  As DaveM said, Glenn, you just want us to answer yes or no,
preferably no, so you can shout cult! cult!
  You make it plain as the pane in my storm door that you have no
intention of discussing anything for the purpose of getting at the truth.
 You  have apparently read somewhere that Mormons may be de-programmed by
using techniques used against cults.  This is the problem as I have come
to see it.  You might as well forget this, Glenn, because  the Mormon
Church is not a cult that exercises mind control over its members, and
therefore mind control deprogramming techniques won't work with us--your
deprogramming techniques are about as effective with Mormons as using a
sledge hammer to cut down a tree.  We feel the constant hammering, but
obviously are not responding to it.  Besides that, Glenn, you make
yourself seem foolish in the process.  OK, pal?  Give it up, and you will
be happier, and so will we.  

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:51:06 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  The below is how I hear you say yes to a question
 
 DAVEH:  Huh again?!?!?!?!?!.Since when does HUH? equate to
 yes???   Do you know the difference between yes, no and huh,
 Glenn?
 
  and then turn around and explain away yes.
 
 DAVEH:  What do you think I was trying to explain away?  I gave you
 the answers in as simple terms (yes) as I could, excepting the one
 question in which I did not understand your term.
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   Here we go again.  I just can't get answers.
 
 
  DAVEH:  Huh?!?!?!?!..What do you think those below comments 
 are
  following my name???
 
   Red is not red and blue is not blue.  Red is black.  Blue is
   white.  And frankly, the color white does not exist.  How you I
   know this chair I am sitting in is a chair?  I don't know it.  I
   have been told all my life it is a chair, but that is just what 
 I
   have been told.  Maybe the table is really a chair, but I have
   always just accepted a table is a table.
 
 --
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
  

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-28 Thread bborrow26

Blainer)  It is in the Bible alright, and probably not a mistake.  But
neither is it a commandment.  The belief that we must have crosses in our
chapels and around our necks is purely a tradition.  God never said we
had to do that.   He told the Israelites to splash blood on their
doorposts to be passed over by the angel of death. That was a
commandment.   But no crosses, OK?  We have our choice on this matter. 
No commandment, just an option and a tradition.   I find no real fault
with Christians having a cross, but neither do I need a cross to be a
Christian.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:14:48 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.  What 
 if this 
 is not a mistake in the Bible?
 
  Blainer)   Wowsers!!   It is just that simple, so I guess I must 
 not be
  able to understand simple things. 
  I wish it was that simple.   The cross is a symbol, no more, no 
 less.  
  There is no commandment to hang a cross in every chapel, around 
 your neck
  or to display one anywhere at any time.  It is strictly a matter 
 of
  taste.   I CAN KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS WITHOUT DISPLAYING A CROSS 
 ANYWHERE,
  SO THE CROSS HAS  NOTHING TO DO WITH MY BEING--OR NOT BEING--A 
 CHRISTIAN.
Crosses are strictly tradition-based symbols, and could easily 
 be
  replaced.  In fact the ancient symbol for Christianity was a fish, 
 not a
  cross.  Either is optional--neither is a requirement to be a 
 Christian.  
  I can be naked in a field by myself and still be a Christian--no
  ornaments, no jewelry, no building even.  (:)  Ya-at-eh!  
 (Navajo-speak
  for it is good!)  
  
 

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

First of all, I have no intention of converting you. The Holy Spirit told me you have crossed the line of no return. As for the statement below. you, Mr. my nose up Joe boys butt, are a liar.

Glenn, because the Mormon
Church is not a cult that exercises mind control over its members,

RE: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-28 Thread ShieldsFamily

You cannot be a REAL Christian WITHOUT a cross. Anyone who despises the
cross, despises Jesus. Anyone with a take it or leave it attitude
towards the cross has never had his sins washed away by the power of the
Blood shed upon that sign of the price HE paid. The cross the FULCRUM
upon which our entire faith is based! Your lack of respect for the cross
shows your apostasy without question.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy
of me. JESUS CHRIST (Matt 10:38)

Izzy




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:46 PM

 I find no real fault
with Christians having a cross, but neither do I need a cross to be a
Christian.




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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-28 Thread Marlin Halverson

Dear David,

Another topic is the state of the dead, the resurrection, and the hereafter.
When I saw my words come back, I realized that it could convey a fear of
what comes after death.  I admit to some of that.  But I have hope in all
that I can understand in the Word of God on that topic.

As far as life being too short, death has troubled my immediate family.
With all that we can understand about the hereafter, one thing is paramount.
God and his angels are involved, noting, and awaiting the outcome of all
that goes on here.  Reality is bigger than our senses can perceive, but this
is the focal point of creation.  We read that angels neither marry nor are
given in marriage, and that the dead are like them in this.  So procreation,
as we know it, is not going on in the hereafter.  But the creation of the
Sons of God is going on --as we may be joint heirs with Christ.  Thus we
have much privilege that those in the hereafter cannot participate in.

Oh how important it is that we train up our children in the way that they
should go, and be responsible for their guidance.  How important it is to
have loving families.  How important it is to love the widows and orphans,
with crippled families, and brethren who need love and support to draw
nearer to the truth and our loving maker.  We have work to do here and now.
When we go on, our work here is done.

I am sure that the next phase that our loving maker has for us is exciting
and much better in new and different ways.  But this is where the fish are
biting; this is where God's attention is focused.  What are we to do with
this precious time, in such weak, corruptible bodies, destined for the dust?

May God bless you, and all.

Love,

Marlin
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sin  Christian Perfection


 Marlin wrote:
  Life is just too precious and short to get
  involved in attitudes.  ...  Let's love the truth.

 What a beautiful statement.  We often fall way short of this on TruthTalk.
 Let's give heed to our newcomer here and try to embrace the truth and set
 aside our attitudes.  Amen?

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-28 Thread Dave

 

ShieldsFamily wrote:

 You cannot be a REAL Christian WITHOUT a cross. Anyone who despises the
 cross, despises Jesus. Anyone with a take it or leave it attitude
 towards the cross has never had his sins washed away by the power of the
 Blood shed upon that sign of the price HE paid. The cross the FULCRUM
 upon which our entire faith is based! Your lack of respect for the cross
 shows your apostasy without question.

 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy
 of me. JESUS CHRIST (Matt 10:38)

 Izzy

DAVEH:  Do you really think he was referring to the crosses Christians commonly wear 
and decorate their edifices with, Izzy?

    Please note two things.  First, Jesus had not yet been crucified when he spoke 
this.  Second, he specified his (symbolically meaning the 'cross' or perhaps burden 
of the person he was referring to) rather than Jesus' own cross upon which he was
crucified.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-27 Thread GJTabor

Davel - You can't even get the questions right, much less answer them. I don't give a flip what DavidM says about the Trinity. I ask you a question and you won't even answer it. I ask you a question, and I EVEN DEFINED THE TERMS. I STILL CAN'T GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
Futhermore, DON'T ask me questions if you can't give me a yes or not.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record I have defined Trinity over and over. Trintiy and Godhead are the same.
DAVEH: As DavidM pointed out, there is a distinct difference between the two in the area of 'substance'. The T doctrine claims God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are all the same substance. The Godhead as I understand it does not make that distinction. Quite the opposite.Jesus' body is clothed with a body of flesh and bone whereas the Holy Ghost is a spirit only.
For the record I ask for a yes or no.
DAVEH: Unless you can show evidence otherwise, the answer is no. I do not accept the Trinity as the same as Godhead.

THIS WAS NOT MY QUESTION.

For the record I did not get it on Trinity after I defined it.
DAVEH: I do not recall you defining "Trinity". Would you please post your definition again. Thanx in advance.

I get more and more Mormons spin. I'm tired of this beating around the bush. I give up. Have a good day. Remember a chair might not be a chair. What if you have been wrong on it all your life?
Get it. If you ask me these questions I can give a yes or not without all this talk.
DAVEH: Let's try a simple one then, Glenn. Does Jesus have a physical body of flesh and bone??? (Yes or no.) And for question #2...Does the Holy Ghost have a spirit body??? (Yes or no.)
After answering both, do you believe they are of the same substance??? (Yes or no.)

Glenn wrote:
Here we go again. I just can't get answers.
What is the problem here, Glenn? Dave just answered your questions, but
here you go saying that you can't get answers. DaveH has asked you several
times to define Trinity for him. Can he get an answer from you about that?
For the record, please note that DaveH said "yes" to your question that
Jesus is God's Son, and yes to the question that Jesus is the second person
of the Godhead. He has answered these questions twice, the same way both
times, but you keep saying that you cannot get answers. I just don't
understand why you are acting this way.

Re: ** SPAM * Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davel
- You can't even get the questions right, much less answer them.
I don't give a flip what DavidM says about the Trinity. I ask you
a question and you won't even answer it.
DAVEH: Sorry 'bout that, Brother Glenn. I've been out of town
the past few days, and still haven't read all my mail from over a month
ago besides!
I
ask you a question, and I EVEN DEFINED THE TERMS.
DAVEH: I don't recall you doing such, but as I said..I have yet
to read all your emails.
I
STILL CAN'T GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
Futhermore,
DON'T ask me questions if you can't give me a yes or not.
DAVEH: LOL...I really do enjoy your unvarnished comments, Glenn.
It is easy to see you get flustered even through this faceless veil of
email. Did you really mean to say, "yes
or not"?!?!?!?! I bet you did that just
to cause me to ROTFandLOL!!! VBG>

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For
the record I have defined Trinity over and over. Trintiy and Godhead
are the same.

DAVEH:
As DavidM pointed out, there is a distinct difference between the two in
the area of 'substance'. The T doctrine claims God the Father, God
the Son and God the Holy Ghost are all the same substance. The Godhead
as I understand it does not make that distinction. Quite the opposite.Jesus'
body is clothed with a body of flesh and bone whereas the Holy Ghost is
a spirit only.
For
the record I ask for a yes or no.

DAVEH:
Unless you can show evidence otherwise, the answer is no. I do not
accept the Trinity as the same as Godhead.


THIS WAS NOT
MY QUESTION.


For
the record I did not get it on Trinity after I defined it.

DAVEH:
I do not recall you defining "Trinity". Would you please post
your definition again. Thanx in advance.


I
get more and more Mormons spin. I'm tired of this beating around
the bush. I give up. Have a good day. Remember
a chair might not be a chair. What if you have been wrong on
it all your life?

Get it. If you ask me these questions I can give a yes or not without
all this talk.

DAVEH:
Let's try a simple one then, Glenn. Does Jesus have a physical body
of flesh and bone??? (Yes or no.) And for question #2...Does
the Holy Ghost have a spirit body??? (Yes or no.)

After answering both, do you believe they are of the same substance???
(Yes or no.)

Glenn
wrote:
> Here we go
again. I just can't get answers.
What is the
problem here, Glenn? Dave just answered your questions, but
here you go
saying that you can't get answers. DaveH has asked you several
times to define
Trinity for him. Can he get an answer from you about that?
For the record,
please note that DaveH said "yes" to your question that
Jesus is God's
Son, and yes to the question that Jesus is the second person
of the Godhead.
He has answered these questions twice, the same way both
times, but you
keep saying that you cannot get answers. I just don't
understand why
you are acting this way.



--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Blainer)  The word for Glenn is contrary.   Little kids go through this
stage, at about age 3, if I recall my old child psychology.  LOL

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:20:50 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 No offense taken, but total 100% disagreement.  Trinity is a 
 perfectly good 
 word.  You let Jeff deceive you.  My point, was Mormons can never 
 give a yes 
 or no.  WHY???   Because they are a cult.   
 
  Glenn, no offense intended, but your interaction here is so 
 blatantly biased
  and false, how can you expect any of us to take you seriously?  
 I'm on your
  side concerning the subject of Mormons being deceived, but the way 
 you 
  argue
  here is embarrassing to us, your colleagues.  DaveH just got done 
 saying
  that he would agree with you if Godhead and Trinity meant the 
 same
  thing, and you turn around with your spin and say, then your 
 answer is 
  no.
  You should have said, then your answer is yes.  It's like you 
 just have 
  to
  find a way to disagree no matter what.
  
 

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

Blainer)  Why not just show us where in the Bible the word Trinity is
at?  It is either there or it is not there.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:23:12 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 To remove the Biblical word Trinity is compromise to get along with 
 a cult 
 that believes Jesus and Satan are brothers.  I don't mind standing 
 alone.

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

Blaqiner)  Yes

Do you believe a.)  Jesus and his father have corporal bodies?  Or b.) do
you believe they are just spirits?  Multiple choice--a or b?

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:57:34 -0400 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
 Glenn wrote:
  OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no?
  Do you believe that Jesus is God's son, second
  person of the Godhead?   Yes or no?   Godhead
  and Trinity are the same to me.  Do you believe
  that Jesus is God's son, second person of the
  Trinity as defined by DavidM?  Yes or no?
 
 Thank you, Glenn.  This post clearly indicates that you are 
 sincerely
 interested in what they believe.
 
 Mormons, please respond!  Thank you.
 
 David Miller.
 
 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
 may know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
 http://www.InnGlory.org
 
 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
 have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Blainer)  That was very informative.  Thanks for your time to write it.  

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:58:28 -0400 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
 Blainer wrote:
  Well, OK.  I guess the answer is yes.  That won't
  cost me any money to say that.  It is just that I am
  not sure what you mean when you include the word
  Trinity.  If this word has just general meaning, OK,
  but if it has some special meaning, in reference to some
  thing or event in particular, then I have to be more cautious.
  I do believe Jesus is God's Son, and that he is God
  because he is one of the Godhead--made up of three
  individuals--the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,
  which is ONE GOD.
 
 Blaine, I'm going to try real quickly to explain this.  
 Unfortunately, I
 think you might reverse yourself when you hear the answer.  :-)
 
 The word Trinity historically does have a special meaning.  It is 
 a word
 meant to designate a Godhead that, while being 3 persons, is also of 
 the
 SAME substance.
 
 The entire argument between the Arians and the Trinitarians hinged 
 on a
 single letter in one Greek word that described the relationship 
 between
 Jesus and the heavenly Father.  This is kind of ironic for a subject 
 of such
 supposed magnitude, especially when you consider that the single 
 letter in
 dispute is the letter iota.  So the whole debate rests upon a single 
 iota!
 LOL  Arius taught that Jesus was a created being, so that he is our 
 Creator
 and we worship him as such, but technically, he is not deity.  The 
 word
 favored by most Arians was homoi-ousius which means, of like 
 essence.
 The word favored by the Trinitarians as homo-ousius which means 
 (of the
 same essence).   The question was if Jesus was of like substance / 
 essence
 as the Father, or if he was of the same substance / essence as the 
 Father.
 
 There was a third view called Sabellianism, but this was rejected as
 heretical prior to this debate between the Arians and the 
 Trinitarians.  In
 fact, the Trinitarians were accused by the Arians as being 
 Sabellians with
 their view of three persons being of the same substance.  
 Sabellianism is
 basically the Oneness teaching that some Christians embrace today, 
 which
 considers the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one person.
 
 The Mormon view technically is kind of like the Arian view.  Arius
 worshipped Jesus just like Mormons do, and he considered Jesus as 
 the
 creator of all the earth, and he viewed Jesus himself being a 
 created
 person.  The difference is that Arius thought that because Jesus was
 created, he technically was not deity.  This was important to Arius 
 in order
 to distinguish themselves as a monotheistic religion rather than a
 polytheistic religion.  Mormons say that Jesus is deity, apparently
 considering themselves to embrace a henotheistic form of polytheism.
 
 It's kind of interesting that Arians and Trinitarians divide over a 
 single
 iota, but Mormons seem to find a division even between this 
 division.  How
 thin can the pie be cut before it just crumbles?
 
 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.
 
 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
 may know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
 http://www.InnGlory.org
 
 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
 have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
 

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

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

Re: ** SPAM * Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davel
- You can't even get the questions right, much less answer them.
I don't give a flip what DavidM says about the Trinity.
DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?! I do. I'm trying to figure
out what you guys (Protestants) believe. Are you suggesting that
DavidM's perspective does not reflect Protestant theology, and your belief
does?
 If so, that is OK. I am just trying to reconcile
the difference (as I perceive it) between GODHEAD and TRINITY. Below
I explained how I see they are different, yet you did not respond to the
points I made.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:


For
the record I have defined Trinity over and over. Trintiy and Godhead
are the same.

DAVEH:
As DavidM pointed out, there is a distinct difference between the two in
the area of 'substance'. The T doctrine claims God the Father, God
the Son and God the Holy Ghost are all the same substance. The Godhead
as I understand it does not make that distinction. Quite the opposite.Jesus'
body is clothed with a body of flesh and bone whereas the Holy Ghost is
a spirit only.
For
the record I ask for a yes or no.

DAVEH:
Unless you can show evidence otherwise, the answer is no. I do not
accept the Trinity as the same as Godhead.

THIS WAS
NOT MY QUESTION.
DAVEH: Perhaps not, but it is "MY
QUESTION". Obviously TRINITY and GODHEAD
are different, unless I am missing something. Is there anything in
the Bible that says Jesus and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance?
If not, where did the SUBSTANCE thing come from? I understood it
was something introduced long after the Bible was written, for political
purposes. I think DavidM suggested something similar. Perhaps
he'd like to correct me if I misunderstood.
 Anyway Glenn, at this point I don't know what your
definition of Trinity is. I ask again.please define it.
Or simply repost your previous explanation. I really don't recall
what you said.


For
the record I did not get it on Trinity after I defined it.

DAVEH:
I do not recall you defining "Trinity". Would you please post
your definition again. Thanx in advance.


--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-27 Thread Marlin Halverson

Dear Ones,

Life is just too precious and short to get involved in attitudes.  It is
because some have not a love for the truth that they are given over to
strong delusion to believe a lie.  Let's love the truth.

I have encountered numerous ideas concerning the nature of God.  Oneness,
Duality, Trinity, Family that is growing, etc

I offer a link to the most definitive studies on the Nature of God that I
have seen:

http://www.cbcg.org/natureofgod.htm

If it is a blessing to you, then praise God.  If not, we'll all find out in
the wash anyway.

May God Bless you,

Marlin



- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sin  Christian Perfection


 Blaqiner)  Yes

 Do you believe a.)  Jesus and his father have corporal bodies?  Or b.) do
 you believe they are just spirits?  Multiple choice--a or b?


--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

 

David Miller wrote:

 Blaine, I'm going to try real quickly to explain this.  Unfortunately, I
 think you might reverse yourself when you hear the answer.  :-)

 The word Trinity historically does have a special meaning.  It is a word
 meant to designate a Godhead that, while being 3 persons, is also of the
 SAME substance.

DAVEH:  Thanx for the great explanation, DavidM.  Would you be so kind as to elaborate 
just a little more on the meaning of substance as used here.  Thanx.

 The entire argument between the Arians and the Trinitarians hinged on a
 single letter in one Greek word that described the relationship between
 Jesus and the heavenly Father.  This is kind of ironic for a subject of such
 supposed magnitude, especially when you consider that the single letter in
 dispute is the letter iota.  So the whole debate rests upon a single iota!
 LOL  Arius taught that Jesus was a created being, so that he is our Creator
 and we worship him as such, but technically, he is not deity.  The word
 favored by most Arians was homoi-ousius which means, of like essence.
 The word favored by the Trinitarians as homo-ousius which means (of the
 same essence).   The question was if Jesus was of like substance / essence
 as the Father, or if he was of the same substance / essence as the Father.

 There was a third view called Sabellianism, but this was rejected as
 heretical prior to this debate between the Arians and the Trinitarians.  In
 fact, the Trinitarians were accused by the Arians as being Sabellians with
 their view of three persons being of the same substance.  Sabellianism is
 basically the Oneness teaching that some Christians embrace today, which
 considers the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one person.

 The Mormon view technically is kind of like the Arian view.  Arius
 worshipped Jesus just like Mormons do, and he considered Jesus as the
 creator of all the earth, and he viewed Jesus himself being a created
 person.  The difference is that Arius thought that because Jesus was
 created, he technically was not deity.  This was important to Arius in order
 to distinguish themselves as a monotheistic religion rather than a
 polytheistic religion.  Mormons say that Jesus is deity, apparently
 considering themselves to embrace a henotheistic form of polytheism.

 It's kind of interesting that Arians and Trinitarians divide over a single
 iota, but Mormons seem to find a division even between this division.  How
 thin can the pie be cut before it just crumbles?

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh,
no, my friend. I have heard all of this stuff on TT about us becoming
gods,
DAVEH: From no less than CS Lewis. He was a Protestant theologian,
was he not???
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To
remove the Biblical word "Trinity"

DAVEH: Glenn, Marlin posted a website to help understand the
mystery of the Trinity. I found this quote there, which seems to
support my position
**
Formulation of Trinitarian Doctrine (Circa 100-500 A.D.)
If Trinitarian doctrine did not come from either the Old or New Testaments,
from whence did it come? The answer is that it
was philosophically derived from the imaginations of men! The
basic structure of this doctrine was formulated over a period
of several hundred years beginning shortly after the death of the Apostle
John and continuing down into and through the
time of St. Augustine. It was formulated from five great philosophic
axioms or constructs that have roots deeply embedded in
the soil of Neoplatonic philosophy. We will also see, however,
that some of these Trinitarian roots grew from the seeds of a
totally new syncretistic religious philosophy!
http://www.cbcg.org/mystery_trinity2.htm
**
..So, is the above wrong in your opinion? As I see it,
"Trinity"
is not a Biblical word let alone Biblical concept! If you believe
otherwise, what evidence do you offer???
is
compromise to get along with a cult that believes Jesus and Satan are brothers.
I don't mind standing alone.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
did not JUST say Biblical Jesus. I defined the Biblical Jesus using
Martin's definition
DAVEH: You are losing me on this, Glenn. I thought Martin's
comments were related to cults. Did I miss something? Did he
also define "Biblical
Jesus"???
which
was a simple definition. You said you agreed with him.
DAVEH: I think I'm getting mixed up on this. Did Martin comment
on "Biblical
Jesus"?
But
I was waiting for the hammar to fall. :-) I've about decided
Mormons don't believe anything that Christians believe after their definition
changes. :-)


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But,
DaveL, I thought you said you worshiped the same Jesus.

DAVEH:
You were the one who used the term, "Biblical Jesus". OK Glenn.I
asked you to define that, and you used a non-Biblical term. To me
that takes Jesus out of the Biblical realm.
Now
you are doing with Jesus what you did with the inerrency article.
You say you believe in them both, but you must change what was said in
order to believe. I don't understand why you don't understand this
is deceit.

DAVEH:
LOL...O Brother Glenn!!! To use a non Biblical term to
define "Biblical Jesus" strikes right to the heart of my pea pickin' body!
I don't understand why you would think I'm being deceitful by questioning
you on this.


--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection





Pastor James PS Templeton wrote:



I
pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus! I never felt led to pray to the
Holy Spirit. To say Dear Holy Spirit, seems all wrong, yet in worshipping
and praising our God, we can surely say blessed Holy Spirit and acknowledge
the wonderful works of God wrought by the Holy Spirit. I don?t like the
word Trinity either, and I question its absolute accuracy. Do we believe
in three equal persons? After all Jesus, the creator, said the Father was
greater, but He also said ?I and the Father are one.

DAVEH:
He also said we would be one with Them! So, whatever 'oneness' Jesus
shares with his Father, we will share with Them in the same manner.

The
Trinity is man?s definition of Godhead. Can man define our Infinite Godhead?
No one can claim that the Westminster Confession has the same level of
inspiration as the Scriptures. James Templeton




--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn - Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity. Mormons do not belive that, correct? I don't expect to get a simply yes or no without qualifications. I'm slow but I have figured this out.

Concerning Biblical words in the Bible...there are no English words in the Bible. Godhead and Trinity are the same to me.
King James Version (Authorized)
Verses 1 - 3 of 3 Click Verse Reference for Study Notes

Dictionaries - 1
Easton's Bible Dictionary
· Godhead

Encyclopedias - 1
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
· Godhead

Lexicons - 3
Greek
· qeio/thv - Godhead
· qeiÛov - Godhead
· qeo/thv - Godhead

Ac 17:29 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. Ro 1:20 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Col 2:9 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

I did not JUST say Biblical Jesus. I defined the Biblical Jesus using Martin's definition
DAVEH: You are losing me on this, Glenn. I thought Martin's comments were related to cults. Did I miss something? Did he also define "Biblical Jesus"???
which was a simple definition. You said you agreed with him.
DAVEH: I think I'm getting mixed up on this. Did Martin comment on "Biblical Jesus"?
But I was waiting for the hammar to fall. :-) I've about decided Mormons don't believe anything that Christians believe after their definition changes. :-)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, DaveL, I thought you said you worshiped the same Jesus.

DAVEH: You were the one who used the term, "Biblical Jesus". OK Glenn.I asked you to define that, and you used a non-Biblical term. To me that takes Jesus out of the Biblical realm.
Now you are doing with Jesus what you did with the inerrency article. You say you believe in them both, but you must change what was said in order to believe. I don't understand why you don't understand this is deceit.

DAVEH: LOL...O Brother Glenn!!! To use a non Biblical term to define "Biblical Jesus" strikes right to the heart of my pea pickin' body! I don't understand why you would think I'm being deceitful by questioning you on this.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

My comments mean that when Mormons say, "yes" it is not yes. When Mormons say "no" it is never no. It is always with chainging word meanings or later on coming back claiming it was not "yes'" or it was not "no".

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
The bottom line is I just would appreciate Mormons telling us what they believe with all the "wisdom" added to it.
DAVEH: Huh?!?!?!?!Have I not explained my beliefs adequately? I guess I just don't understand your above comment, Glenn.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn to James - Here what you said.\

The Trinity is man?s definition of Godhead. Can man define our Infinite Godhead? No one can claim that the Westminster Confession has the same level of inspiration as the Scriptures. James Templeton

Then you said:
 I don?t like the word Trinity either, and I question its absolute accuracy. Do we believe in three equal persons? After all Jesus, the creator, said the Father was greater, but He also said ?I and the Father are one.

THEREFORE, if no one can understand the Trinity HOW CAN YOU QUESTION IT? YOU HAVE said you don't know and then you contradict yourself and say you know. 
Why will you not give us some of your religious background? What churches have you been kicked out of?

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
- Blainer - Do you believe "Jesus is God's Son, second person of the Trinity?
You seemed to have reworded it when you answered. I just cannot not
get a yes or no. It's always qualified answer. I cannot get
a yes or not.
This
is not a trick question.
Where
do I get this stuff? I get it on TT. Have I misunderstood you on
this "Jesus
to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another god
and mary,
one god in a pantheon of gods."?
DAVEH: Glenn, I think you are the only one who has posted that comment.
I don't recall anybody else saying such. Here is where you said it
on Oct 21.
**
The major reference "Cults Reference Bible" defines cults:
A group of people polarized about the religious interpretations or teachings
of a specific individual or organization. IT ALWAYS CLAIMS TO
BE IN HARMONY WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING THAT
JESUS CHRIST IS THE LORD GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH.
Cults redefine doctrinal terms to conform to their own deviant theology.
They also say, "We're in agreement with the basic Christian message".
But when you start penetrating deeper into the system, you find out
that there is an essential denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the Trinity.
Jesus to the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, the first
and mightiest creation of Jehovah God.
Jesus to the Mormon signifies a a polygamous offspring of another god
and Mary, one god in a pantheon of gods.
Jesus to the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God.
**
So Glenn, I think you should consider professional treatment..you
are beginning to believe your own spin!!! ROTFLOL
What
part his correct and part part is not correct?

DAVEH: And Glenn.Blaine already answered your question.

Blainer) This is not true. Mormons believe Jesus was what
the Bible
says he is--the son of Mary and God the Father, conceived by the power
of
the Holy Ghost. Where did you get this other stuff?

the first time you asked it. You must not read all theposts..or.perhaps
you are letting your dogmatic biases against LDS theology blind you against
our answers. You have stated that you don't believe anything we say
anyway, so why do you bother asking us questions when you simply ignore
or disbelieve anything we say??? No offense Glenn, but is your participation
in TT sincere?

>
Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second person of the
>
Trinity.
>
>
Do you believe the above?
>
>
Jesus
to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another god
>
and mary,
>
one god in a pantheon of gods.
Blainer)
This is not true. Mormons believe Jesus was what the Bible
says
he is--the son of Mary and God the Father, conceived by the power of
the
Holy Ghost. Where did you get this other stuff?


--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
- Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity.
Mormons do not belive that, correct?
DAVEH: Like I've intimated before.I don't know if I believe that
because I don't understand what you mean by "Trinity"...Do
you??? If so, please explain it so I can then tell you if I believe
it in the context of what you said above.
I
don't expect to get a simply yes or no without qualifications. I'm
slow but I have figured this out.
Concerning
Biblical words in the Bible...there are no English words in the Bible.
DAVEH: The problem stems from you spending too much time in the Greek
text. G> I can't read Greek, so all my Bibles are in English,
where English words can be found. I just can't find "Trinity"
there. Is it in the Greek text?
Godhead
and Trinity are the same to me.
DAVEH: Then why use a word that is not Biblical? Simply change
your above comment from..
"Christians
believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity."
..to.
"Christians
believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Godhead."
..and I'll agree with your statement. But I don't feel
comfortable agreeing with a statement that uses non-Biblical terms to describe
our Lord and Savior. I guess I'm more than a little apprehensive
in accepting the doctrines of men that create paradoxes when it comes to
our Lord.
ing
James Version (Authorized)
Verses
1 - 3 of 3 Click Verse Reference for Study
Notes

Dictionaries
- 1
Easton's
Bible Dictionary
 Godhead
Encyclopedias
- 1
International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia
 Godhead
Lexicons
- 3
Greek
 qeio/thv
- Godhead
 qeiov
- Godhead
 qeo/thv
- Godhead
Ac
17:29 - [In
Context|Read
Chapter|Original
Greek]Forasmuch then
as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead
is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Ro
1:20 - [In
Context|Read
Chapter|Original
Greek]For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
so that they are without excuse: Col
2:9 - [In
Context|Read
Chapter|Original
Greek]For in him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.







I
did not JUST say Biblical Jesus. I defined the Biblical Jesus using
Martin's definition

DAVEH:
You are losing me on this, Glenn. I thought Martin's comments were
related to cults. Did I miss something? Did he also define
"Biblical Jesus"???
which
was a simple definition. You said you agreed with him.

DAVEH:
I think I'm getting mixed up on this. Did Martin comment on "Biblical
Jesus"?
But
I was waiting for the hammar to fall. :-) I've about decided
Mormons don't believe anything that Christians believe after their definition
changes. :-)


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But,
DaveL, I thought you said you worshiped the same Jesus.


DAVEH:
You were the one who used the term, "Biblical Jesus". OK Glenn.I
asked you to define that, and you used a non-Biblical term. To me
that takes Jesus out of the Biblical realm.
Now
you are doing with Jesus what you did with the inerrency article.
You say you believe in them both, but you must change what was said in
order to believe. I don't understand why you don't understand this
is deceit.


DAVEH:
LOL...O Brother Glenn!!! To use a non Biblical term to
define "Biblical Jesus" strikes right to the heart of my pea pickin' body!
I don't understand why you would think I'm being deceitful by questioning
you on this.












--
~~~
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] Sin Christian Perfection

I use the word Trinity because it is a perfectly good Biblical word. I don't choose to let cults change vocabulary. Furthermore, the word Trinity exposes the Mormon deceit (lie) of believing in the Biblical Jesus.

 IF we go by what you recommend, then must speak in Greek (and a dead Greek at that) and Hebrew. No thanks. 


 Godhead and Trinity are the same to me.
DAVEH: Then why use a word that is not Biblical? Simply change your above comment from..

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

THEN YOUR ANSWER IS NO. WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT? I do not get straight answers out of a Mormons. 

DAVEH: Then why use a word that is not Biblical? Simply change your above comment from.. "Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity." ..to. "Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Godhead."

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Oh, no, my friend. I have heard all of this stuff on TT about us becoming gods, that Jesus is created, sex in heaven, etc,. I cut through the deceit (lies) and exposed it for what it is.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Glenn - Blainer - Do you believe "Jesus is God's Son, second person of the Trinity? You seemed to have reworded it when you answered. I just cannot not get a yes or no. It's always qualified answer. I cannot get a yes or not. 
This is not a trick question. 
Where do I get this stuff? I get it on TT. Have I misunderstood you on this "Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another god 
and mary, one god in a pantheon of gods."?

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-25 Thread bborrow26

Blainer)  Well, OK.  I guess the answer is yes.  That won't cost me any
money to say that.  It is just that I am not sure what you mean when you
include the word Trinity.  If this word has just general meaning, OK,
but if it has some special meaning, in reference to some thing or event
in particular, then I have to be more cautious. 
I do believe Jesus is God's Son, and that he is God because he is one of
the Godhead--made up of three individuals--the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost, which is ONE GOD. 

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:10:40 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Glenn - Blainer - Do you believe Jesus is God's Son, second person 
 of the 
 Trinity?  You seemed to have reworded it when you answered.  I just 
 cannot 
 not get a yes or no.  It's always qualified answer.  I cannot get a 
 yes or 
 not. 
 This is not a trick question.  
 Where do I get this stuff?  I get it on TT. Have I misunderstood you 
 on this 
 Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another god 
 
 and mary,  one god in a pantheon of gods.?  What part his correct 
 and part 
 part is not correct?
 
   Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second person of the 
   Trinity.  
   
   Do you believe the above?
   
   Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another 
 god 
   and mary, 
   one god in a pantheon of gods.  
  
  Blainer)  This is not true.  Mormons believe Jesus was what the 
 Bible
  says he is--the son of Mary and God the Father, conceived by the 
 power of
  the Holy Ghost.  Where did you get this other stuff?  
  
 

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn wrote:
 I use the word Trinity because it is a
 perfectly good Biblical word.

The word Trinity is NOT a Biblical word.  Accepting the idea of a Trinity
might be Biblical in that it is consonant with the Bible, but the word
Trinity itself is not found in the Bible; therefore, it is not a Biblical
word.

Glenn wrote:
 Godhead and Trinity are the same to me.

DAVEH wrote:
 Then why use a word that is not Biblical? Simply
 change your above comment from..

 Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second
 person of the Trinity.
 ..to.
 Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second
 person of the Godhead.

 ..and I'll agree with your statement.

Glenn wrote:
 THEN YOUR ANSWER IS NO.  WHY DIDN'T YOU
 JUST SAY THAT?  I do not get straight answers out of
 a Mormons.

Glenn, no offense intended, but your interaction here is so blatantly biased
and false, how can you expect any of us to take you seriously?  I'm on your
side concerning the subject of Mormons being deceived, but the way you argue
here is embarrassing to us, your colleagues.  DaveH just got done saying
that he would agree with you if Godhead and Trinity meant the same
thing, and you turn around with your spin and say, then your answer is no.
You should have said, then your answer is yes.  It's like you just have to
find a way to disagree no matter what.

Remember back when I explained my understanding of the Trinity to Jeff, and
Jeff said that if what I explained as the Trinity was true, then he believed
in the Trinity?  How about us coming to a mutual understanding in this way?
Personally, I would like to drop the label Trinity and use Biblical
language like Godhead.  I wish we also could drop our designations of
Mormon and Protestant.  Let's discuss truth together without bigotry and
hatred over what group someone belongs to.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

I can't believe you can say this. Of course it is a Biblical word. According to this legalism no ENGLISH WORD IS BIBLICAL. 

Glenn wrote:
 I use the word Trinity because it is a
 perfectly good Biblical word.

The word "Trinity" is NOT a Biblical word. Accepting the idea of a Trinity
might be Biblical in that it is consonant with the Bible, but the word
"Trinity" itself is not found in the Bible; therefore, it is not a Biblical
word.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Names are important. God named things. Evil needs to be named. If names are not important, I will start calling you Fido.

Personally, I would like to drop the label "Trinity" and use Biblical
language like "Godhead." I wish we also could drop our designations of
"Mormon" and "Protestant." Let's discuss truth together without bigotry and
hatred over what group someone belongs to.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

No offense taken, but total 100% disagreement. Trinity is a perfectly good word. You let Jeff deceive you. My point, was Mormons can never give a yes or no. WHY??? Because they are a cult. 

Glenn, no offense intended, but your interaction here is so blatantly biased
and false, how can you expect any of us to take you seriously? I'm on your
side concerning the subject of Mormons being deceived, but the way you argue
here is embarrassing to us, your colleagues. DaveH just got done saying
that he would agree with you if "Godhead" and "Trinity" meant the same
thing, and you turn around with your spin and say, "then your answer is no."
You should have said, "then your answer is yes." It's like you just have to
find a way to disagree no matter what.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn wrote:
 Names are important.  God named things.
 Evil needs to be named.  If names are not
 important, I will start calling you Fido.

LOL.  I guess you need to give me some name to differentiate me from your
BIG dog that Laura told us about.  :-)

I agree that names are important, but if you don't define the names used,
they can be a hinderance, especially when they are loaded with different
meanings for different people.  For example, Jeff thought the Trinity was
the view that the three persons of the Godhead were actually One person.
That is Sabellianism, not the Trinity, but it is difficult to re-educate
people.  Many Trinitarians themselves misrepresent their own doctrine, not
having really studied it themselves.  Everyone has a Bible, so why not use
Bible terms to talk about what the Bible teaches?

A word is Biblical if the word is used in the Bible.  Do you know any
Bible anywhere, whether English, Greek, Latin, or whatever, that uses the
word Trinity?  If not, then I do not consider it a Biblical word.  You
said that Godhead and Trinity were the same for you, so what is the problem
with using the Biblical term of Godhead?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no? Do you believe that Jesus is God's son, second person of the Godhead? Yes or no? Godhead and Trinity are the same to me. Do you believe tht Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity as defined by DavidM? Yes or no?

Glenn wrote:
 Names are important. God named things.
 Evil needs to be named. If names are not
 important, I will start calling you Fido.

LOL. I guess you need to give me some name to differentiate me from your
BIG dog that Laura told us about. :-)

I agree that names are important, but if you don't define the names used,
they can be a hinderance, especially when they are loaded with different
meanings for different people. For example, Jeff thought the Trinity was
the view that the three persons of the Godhead were actually One person.
That is Sabellianism, not the Trinity, but it is difficult to re-educate
people. Many Trinitarians themselves misrepresent their own doctrine, not
having really studied it themselves. Everyone has a Bible, so why not use
Bible terms to talk about what the Bible teaches?

A word is "Biblical" if the word is used in the Bible. Do you know any
Bible anywhere, whether English, Greek, Latin, or whatever, that uses the
word "Trinity"? If not, then I do not consider it a Biblical word. You
said that Godhead and Trinity were the same for you, so what is the problem
with using the Biblical term of Godhead?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn wrote:
 OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no?
 Do you believe that Jesus is God's son, second
 person of the Godhead?   Yes or no?   Godhead
 and Trinity are the same to me.  Do you believe
 that Jesus is God's son, second person of the
 Trinity as defined by DavidM?  Yes or no?

Thank you, Glenn.  This post clearly indicates that you are sincerely
interested in what they believe.

Mormons, please respond!  Thank you.

David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

 

David Miller wrote:

 Glenn wrote:
  OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no?
  Do you believe that Jesus is God's son,

DAVEH:  Yes.

 second
  person of the Godhead?   Yes or no?

DAVEH:  Yes.

   Godhead
  and Trinity are the same to me.

DAVEH:  I disagree.

  Do you believe
  that Jesus is God's son, second person of the
  Trinity as defined by DavidM?  Yes or no?

 Thank you, Glenn.  This post clearly indicates that you are sincerely
 interested in what they believe.

 Mormons, please respond!

DAVEH:  I've answered those questions before, but I don't mind answering them again.  
The only one I can't answer is the one I don't understand.  Now.will Glenn define 
Trinity for me, please.

 Thank you.

 David Miller.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn to DAveH - You just called me a liar. I told you I believe the Trinity and Godhead are the same. You said you disagree. HOW in the world can you disagree that I believe the Godhead and Trinity are the same? 

PS. I am not offended you called me a liar. I quite like it. It tells me a lot. 


 Godhead
  and Trinity are the same to me.

DAVEH: I disagree.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
to DAveH - You just called me a liar.
DAVEH: Do you really think so, Glenn. Go back and read it again.
And..I'd be curious if any other TTers understood my answer in the
same way that you do.
I
told you I believe the Trinity and Godhead are the same. You said
you disagree.
DAVEH: My disagreement should not be understood as calling you a
liar, Glenn. My comment was to explain to you that my understanding
is that GODHEAD and TRINITY are two different concepts. I believe
that GODHEAD is a Biblical term used to describe the relationship of the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Trinity on the other hand is man's attempt
to do so outside the Bible. That is why I don't believe "Trinity
and Godhead are the same". That you believe
they are the same is not a problem for me.Believe what you will.
My disagreement was merely to explain to you that I don't see it the same
way that you do. My comment was no way of a reflection on you of
being a liar.
HOW
in the world can you disagree that I believe the Godhead and Trinity are
the same?
DAVEH: I gave you a brief explanation above. Right now I'm
leaving town, so I don't have time to explain more. But let me offer
one 'problem' I have with the T doctrine: "Substance".
Please explain to me the meaning of 'substance' as used in the T doctrine,
and then I'll try to explain why I don't think the T doctrine is doctrinally
correct. (I'll do that when I get back in a few days.)
PS.
I am not offended you called me a liar.
DAVEH: And why should you. I didn't.
I
quite like it.
DAVEH: Do you feel it fits you well! ;-)
It
tells me a lot.
DAVEH: I think you are telling all of us TTers a lot, Glenn..

>
Godhead
>
> and Trinity are the same to me.
DAVEH:
I disagree.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn wrote:
 OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no?
 Do you believe that Jesus is God's son,

DAVEH:
 Yes.

Glenn wrote:
 second person of the Godhead?  Yes or no?

DAVEH:
 Yes.

Glenn wrote:
 Godhead and Trinity are the same to me.

DAVEH:
 I disagree.

DAVEH:
 I've answered those questions before, but I
 don't mind answering them again.  The only
 one I can't answer is the one I don't understand.
 Now.will Glenn define Trinity for me, please.


Glenn wrote:
 Here we go again.  I just can't get answers.

What is the problem here, Glenn?  Dave just answered your questions, but
here you go saying that you can't get answers.  DaveH has asked you several
times to define Trinity for him.  Can he get an answer from you about that?

For the record, please note that DaveH said yes to your question that
Jesus is God's Son, and yes to the question that Jesus is the second person
of the Godhead.  He has answered these questions twice, the same way both
times, but you keep saying that you cannot get answers.  I just don't
understand why you are acting this way.

You agreed to drop the question of the Trinity and use the term Godhead
instead.  Do his answers suffice?  If not, then it is incumbent upon you to
define Trinity if you want an answer from DaveH.  That seems fair to me.

For the record, two Mormons on this list have indicated agreement that Jesus
is God's Son and that He is the second person of the Trinity, and one Mormon
has indicated that Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and would need
a definition of Trinity to answer any question that uses that term.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

The below is how I hear you say yes to a question and then turn around and explain away yes.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Here we go again. I just can't get answers.
DAVEH: Huh?!?!?!?!..What do you think those below comments are following my name??? 
Red is not red and blue is not blue. Red is black. Blue is white. And frankly, the color white does not exist. How you I know this chair I am sitting in is a chair? I don't know it. I have been told all my life it is a chair, but that is just what I have been told. Maybe the table is really a chair, but I have always just accepted a table is a table.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-24 Thread Dave




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notice
that Jesus is not on the cross.
DAVEH: Hmm.ever notice the RCC folks, Glenn? They seem
to relish the image of Jesus hanging on the cross. Perhaps Protestants
found that image too repugnant, and have removed Christ from that shameful
position and are now just happy to identify with that device which brought
shame and pain to our Lord.
He
has risen. This is a red flag to millions of Christians...this
anti-cross thing. It's not that you don't have a cross IT'S THAT
MORMONS REFUSE TO HAVE A CROSS.
DAVEH: LDS folks have had to bear their crosses just as others have
in times past. Certainly not to the extent that our Lord suffered
thereon, though. It is one thing to bear a cross, and another to
worship it. Mormons prefer to worship our Lord. We will leave
others to worship the cross.



They
seem to refuse to put up a cross in their buildings.
DAVEH: Is
that required to be a 'Christian' church? We simply prefer to celebrate
the Lord's life, not his death.
The cross in a church
does not represent Christ's death It reminds us that
he has risen and is seated on the right hand of the Father. It represents
the resurrection and I'd call that life! Christ is no longer on the
cross! Laura

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-24 Thread Dave




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
already did from one of the greatest scholars in the 90's.
Jesus
to the Christian is God the Son, second person of the Trinity.
DAVEH: I would agree to that IF you will be willing to change "Trinity"
to Godhead or something similar. After all, "Trinity"
is not Biblical, is it? Or am I wrong. Are there any Bible
translations that use the term "Trinity",
or is that a term dreamt up by men long after our Lord died and was resurrected?

DAVEH:
Then perhaps you should define "Biblical Jesus",
Glenn.
You
have to see through their definitions.


--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Again, this seems like a different Jesus. 1 Cor. 1:18. I have never heard a good word from you on the cross. The Bible is full of references to the cross.
Why do Mormons REFUSE to have a cross? Do you consider it a sin to wear a cross?


DAVEH: LDS folks have had to bear their crosses just as others have in times past. Certainly not to the extent that our Lord suffered thereon, though. It is one thing to bear a cross, and another to worship it. Mormons prefer to worship our Lord. We will leave others to worship the cross.

RE: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-24 Thread ShieldsFamily









Laura,



All of the cults who reject Christs
atoning Blood also reject the cross (like Jehovahs Witness and LDS). The
cross is an affront to satan, and to those who are deceived by satan. It
is the cross the defeats their lies. Its just that simple.



Roman Catholics keep Christ on the cross
because they think he is still there; being re-crucified every time they offer
up the mass. Sick, huh? We know that he was crucified once and for all,
but they persist in that error, along with many others.



Izzy



-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002
7:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sin 
Christian Perfection



Maybe the cross shows how each group
places the emphasis on Christ: On the cross - the
crucifiction Off the cross - the
resurection No cross - Christ is not the main
focus Take a look at the facilities where we worshiip.
Mormons have Moroni (an angel) Many churches have a
cross. Just an observation. Laura




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Notice that Jesus is not on the cross.


DAVEH:
Hmm.ever notice the RCC folks, Glenn? They seem to relish the
image of Jesus hanging on the cross. Perhaps Protestants found that image
too repugnant, and have removed Christ from that shameful position and are now
just happy to identify with that device which brought shame and pain to our
Lord. 



He has risen. This is a red flag
to millions of Christians...this anti-cross thing. It's not that you
don't have a cross IT'S THAT MORMONS REFUSE TO HAVE A CROSS.


DAVEH:
LDS folks have had to bear their crosses just as others have in times
past. Certainly not to the extent that our Lord suffered thereon,
though. It is one thing to bear a cross, and another to worship it.
Mormons prefer to worship our Lord. We will leave others to worship the
cross. 












They seem to refuse to put up a cross in
their buildings.


DAVEH:
Is that required to be a 'Christian' church? We simply prefer to
celebrate the Lord's life, not his death.


The
cross in a church does not represent Christ's death It
reminds us that he has risen and is seated on the right hand of the
Father. It represents the resurrection and I'd call that life!
Christ is no longer on the cross! Laura




--

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-24 Thread CHamm56114

In a message dated 10/24/2002 7:30:38 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Laura,

 

All of the cults who reject Christ’s atoning Blood also reject the cross (like Jehovah’s Witness and LDS). The cross is an affront to satan, and to those who are deceived by satan. It is the cross the defeats their lies. It’s just that simple.

 

Roman Catholics keep Christ on the cross because they think he is still there; being re-crucified every time they offer up the mass. Sick, huh? We know that he was crucified “once and for all”, but they persist in that error, along with many others.

 

Izzy



Agreed Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

But, DaveL, I thought you said you worshiped the same Jesus. Now you are doing with Jesus what you did with the inerrency article. You say you believe in them both, but you must change what was said in order to believe. I don't understand why you don't understand this is deceit.

12 pieces of candy = one dozen


I already did from one of the greatest scholars in the 90's. Jesus to the Christian is God the Son, second person of the Trinity.


DAVEH: I would agree to that IF you will be willing to change "Trinity" to Godhead or something similar. After all, "Trinity" is not Biblical, is it? Or am I wrong. Are there any Bible translations that use the term "Trinity", or is that a term dreamt up by men long after our Lord died and was resurrected? 

DAVEH: Then perhaps you should define "Biblical Jesus", Glenn. 
You have to see through their definitions.


--

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-24 Thread Dave




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But,
DaveL, I thought you said you worshiped the same Jesus.
DAVEH: You were the one who used the term, "Biblical Jesus".
OK Glenn.I asked you to define that, and you used a non-Biblical term.
To me that takes Jesus out of the Biblical realm.
Now
you are doing with Jesus what you did with the inerrency article.
You say you believe in them both, but you must change what was said in
order to believe. I don't understand why you don't understand this
is deceit.
DAVEH: LOL...O Brother Glenn!!! To use a non Biblical
term to define "Biblical Jesus" strikes right to the heart of my pea pickin'
body! I don't understand why you would think I'm being deceitful
by questioning you on this.
12
pieces of candy = one dozen
DAVEH: OK then..please define "Trinity"
and let's see if your definition stands up to our "Biblical Jesus".


I
already did from one of the greatest scholars in the 90's. Jesus
to the Christian is God the Son, second person of the Trinity.


DAVEH:
I would agree to that IF you will be willing to change "Trinity" to
Godhead or something similar. After all, "Trinity"
is not Biblical, is it? Or am I wrong. Are there any Bible
translations that use the term "Trinity", or is that a term dreamt
up by men long after our Lord died and was resurrected?

DAVEH:
Then perhaps you should define "Biblical Jesus", Glenn.
You
have to see through their definitions.



--



--
~~~
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] Sin Christian Perfection

The bottom line is I just would appreciate Mormons telling us what they believe with all the "wisdom" added to it. 

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Of course, I am gREATLY under the influence of Satan for following the Bible only.
DAVEH: Who am I to disagree with one who pontificates so brilliantly! ;-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Tell me James, what country do you live in? What is your denominational background? Who have you fought with religiously in your life? I am trying to figure out where you are coming from?

I pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus! I never felt led to pray to the Holy Spirit. To say Dear Holy Spirit, seems all wrong, yet in worshipping and praising our God, we can surely say blessed Holy Spirit and acknowledge the wonderful works of God wrought by the Holy Spirit. I don’t like the word Trinity either, and I question its absolute accuracy. Do we believe in three equal persons? After all Jesus, the creator, said the Father was greater, but He also said “I and the Father are one. The Trinity is man’s definition of Godhead. Can man define our Infinite Godhead? No one can claim that the Westminster Confession has the same level of inspiration as the Scriptures. James Templeton

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-24 Thread bborrow26



On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:41:15 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second person of the 
 Trinity.  
 
 Do you believe the above?
 
 Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another god 
 and mary, 
 one god in a pantheon of gods.  

Blainer)  This is not true.  Mormons believe Jesus was what the Bible
says he is--the son of Mary and God the Father, conceived by the power of
the Holy Ghost.  Where did you get this other stuff?  
 
 Do you believe the above?  The two are not the same Jesus.
 
 Mormons believe (I know you get angry with Christians telling 
 Mormons what 
 they 
  believe.  The reason Mormons get angry is because they don't want 
 people 
  knowing what they believe until they gradually brainwash them.)
  
 
 
 Blainer)  Yes
  
  
  On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:54:46 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   Blaine,  Do you believe Jesus is God the Son?  Laura
  
 

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-24 Thread bborrow26

Blainer)  Yes, but we believe Jesus and the Father are two separate
persons, one in mind and purpose.  The BoM states in several places that
the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are ONE GOD.  But ONE means as I
indicated--one in mind and purpose.  When JS saw the first vision, he saw
one individual who was then joined by a second individual.  The first
introduced the second as my Beloved Son, In whom I am well pleased.  
JS said both looked alike.  He said both were glorious beyond
description, clothed in white robes, surrounded by brilliant light,
which, when it fell upon JS, gave him a feeling of great joy.   He
described the angels that visited him on several occasions
similarly--surrounded by light, glorious in appearance, clothed in white
robes. On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:29:29 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 In a message dated 10/23/2002 10:23:40 PM Central Daylight Time, 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 
  
  Blainer)  I swear, Glenn,  .  .   .  Where and when did I ever say 
 I do
  not believe Jesus is God the Son?
  
 
 You say you believe Jesus is God the SonThen do you believe 
 Jesus when he 
 said I and the Father are one?  Laura

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread GJTabor

Glenn - I am sorry too. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
Mormons cannot be trusted. They are in a con game over the dumbing of America. They say what needs to be said in order to seduce people into hell fire.
DAVEH: I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way, Glenn. 

Glenn wrote: 
 WHAT? No way. Just because DaveL says so 
 does not mean it is the official doctrine of the Mormons. 
I read this also on the Mormon web site.

--

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread GJTabor

Notice that Jesus is not on the cross. He has risen. This is a red flag to millions of Christians...this anti-cross thing. It's not that you don't have a cross IT'S THAT MORMONS REFUSE TO HAVE A CROSS.



They seem to refuse to put up a cross in their buildings.

DAVEH: Is that required to be a 'Christian' church? We simply prefer to celebrate the Lord's life, not his death. 

The cross in a church does not represent Christ's death It reminds us that he has risen and is seated on the right hand of the Father. It represents the resurrection and I'd call that life! Christ is no longer on the cross! Laura

RE: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread ShieldsFamily









Laura,



The cross is an offense to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.



Izzy



-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002
7:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sin 
Christian Perfection



In a message dated 10/23/2002
2:37:31 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:









They seem to refuse to put up a cross in
their buildings.


DAVEH:
Is that required to be a 'Christian' church? We simply prefer to
celebrate the Lord's life, not his death. 



The cross in a church does not represent Christ's death It
reminds us that he has risen and is seated on the right hand of the
Father. It represents the resurrection and I'd call that life!
Christ is no longer on the cross! Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread CHamm56114

Agreed And it reminds us that Christ is who he said he was! Laura


Laura,

 

The cross is an offense to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread Pastor James PS Templeton









Dear Sister Laura, I agree with you. That
is an excellent response, James Templeton



-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 October 2002 12:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sin 
Christian Perfection



When
I took a class on cults we were taught to start with what the group
taught about Jesus. If they didn't believe that Jesus was God the Son, born
of the virgin Mary, and that he was crucified,dead and buried, rose again
and will come again, then we should be suspicious. Laura



The major reference Cults Reference
Bible defines cults:

A group of people polarized about the religious interpretations or teachings of
a specific individual or organization. IT ALWAYS CLAIMS TO BE IN HARMONY
WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE LORD
GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH. Cults redefine doctrinal terms to conform to
their own deviant theology. 

They also say, We're in agreement with the basic Christian
message. But when you start penetrating deeper into the system, you
find out that there is an essential denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the Trinity. 

Jesus to the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, the first and
mightiest creation of Jehovah God.

Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another god and Mary,
one god in a pantheon of gods.

Jesus to the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God.

RE: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread Pastor James PS Templeton









It would have been better if the word had
been translated immerse in our Bibles rather than baptism, and this would have
ruled many modern ceremonies which are called baptism, James Templeton



-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 October 2002 17:27
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sin 
Christian Perfection



Glenn this friend DavidM - You
are really enjoyed this aren't you. :-) 

Glenn wrote:


 David, I can't comminute with you on this.
 You, my friend, Are so blinded on this subject
 it is unbelievable. Baptizio is NOT a translation
 but a compromise; a transliteration. They did
 not translate the word. Much learning has made
 thee mad on this. :-)

I understand that the word baptize is basically a
transliteration. But we
have many words in the English language that are simply transliterated
words. Nothing is unusual about that. All I was trying to say is
that they
didn't exactly transliterate the word, otherwise it would be baptizo.
What
they did was keep a word that already was common in English, which was a
general transliteration, just like the word Peter is a
transliteration of
Greek.

If you think that the word baptize was not part of the English language back
then, you are mistaken. Is that what you think? Is that why we are
having
problems communicating?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread GJTabor

AGain, you just ask questions without responding to what I say.

Glenn - I say Mormons are not plain on their belief in Jesus.
DAVEH: What have I not tried to explain to you, Glenn? If my explanations are not "plain" enough, I will repeat them as many times as you need. I think it's my eternal goal to help you understand as a child, Brother Glenn! :-)
They seem to refuse to put up a cross in their buildings.
DAVEH: Is that required to be a 'Christian' church? We simply prefer to celebrate the Lord's life, not his death.
If Mormons believe in the Biblical Jesus they are not a cult.
DAVEH: Then you should define what constitutes "Biblical Jesus" so that we can see if we believe likewise.
But this stuff about Jesus being created and the brother of Satan is suspect at best and perhaps they have Satan and Jesus mixed up. I don't trust Mormons not because they are liars, but because they are brainwashed.
Notice Blainer says he agrees with "all" the below as "fundamental to Mormon belief", but he does not believe "Jesus is God the Son,
DAVEH: I must have missed something. Where/when did he say that, Glenn?
second Person of the Trinity." Is Blainer deliberately lying? I think not.
DAVEH: I think not too. I bet you are just having a problem with a beam in your eye preventing you from seeing what we are trying to explain. ;-)
But to me it is an obvious lie.

Blainer) All fundamental to Mormon belief, Laura. But Glenn insists we
are still a cult?
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:53:24 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I took a class on cults we were taught to start with what the
"group"
taught about Jesus. If they didn't believe that Jesus was God the
Son, born
of the virgin Mary, and that he was crucified,dead and buried, rose
again
and will come again, then we should be suspicious. Laura

The major reference "Cults Reference Bible" defines cults:

A group of people polarized about the religious interpretations or

teachings of a specific individual or organization. IT ALWAYS
CLAIMS TO BE
IN HARMONY WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING THAT
JESUS
CHRIST IS THE LORD GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH. Cults redefine
doctrinal
terms to conform to their own deviant theology.

They also say, "We're in agreement with the basic Christian
message". But
when you start penetrating deeper into the system, you find out
that there
is an essential denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the
Trinity.

Jesus to the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, the
first
and mightiest creation of Jehovah God.

Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another
god and
Mary, one god in a pantheon of gods.

Jesus to the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God.

-- ~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread bborrow26

Blainer)  Yes

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:54:46 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 PREBlaine,  Do you believe Jesus is God the Son?  Laura
 --
 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] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread bborrow26

Blainer)  I swear, Glenn,  .  .   .  Where and when did I ever say I do
not believe Jesus is God the Son?


On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:25:05 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Glenn - I say Mormons are not plain on their belief in Jesus.  They 
 seem to 
 refuse to put up a cross in their buildings.
 
 If Mormons believe in the Biblical Jesus they are not a cult.  But 
 this stuff 
 about Jesus being created and the brother of Satan is suspect at 
 best and 
 perhaps they have Satan and Jesus mixed up.   
 I don't trust Mormons not because they are liars, but because they 
 are 
 brainwashed.  
 
 Notice Blainer says he agrees with all the below as fundamental 
 to Mormon 
 belief, but he does not believe Jesus is God the Son, second 
 Person of the 
 Trinity.  Is Blainer deliberately lying?  I think not.  But to me 
 it is an 
 obvious lie.  
 
  Blainer)  All fundamental to Mormon belief, Laura.  But Glenn 
 insists we
  are still a cult?
  
  On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:53:24 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   When I took a class on cults we were taught to start with what 
 the 
   group 
   taught about Jesus.  If they didn't believe that Jesus was God 
 the 
   Son, born 
   of the virgin Mary, and that he was crucified,dead and buried,  
 rose 
   again 
   and will come again, then we should be suspicious.  Laura
   
The major reference Cults Reference Bible defines cults:

A group of people polarized about the religious 
 interpretations or 
   
teachings of a specific individual or organization.  IT ALWAYS 
 
   CLAIMS TO BE 
IN HARMONY WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING 
 THAT 
   JESUS 
CHRIST IS THE LORD GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH.  Cults redefine 
 
   doctrinal 
terms to conform to their own deviant theology.  

They also say, We're in agreement with the basic Christian 
   message.  But 
when you start penetrating deeper into the system, you find 
 out 
   that there 
is an essential denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the 
 
   Trinity.  

Jesus to the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, 
 the 
   first 
and mightiest creation of Jehovah God.

Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of 
 another 
   god and 
Mary, one god in a pantheon of gods.

Jesus to the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God. 
   
  
  
 

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread Dave




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
- I say Mormons are not plain on their belief in Jesus.
DAVEH: What have I not tried to explain to you, Glenn? If my
explanations are not "plain"
enough, I will repeat them as many times as you need. I think it's
my eternal goal to help you understand as a child, Brother Glenn!
:-)
They
seem to refuse to put up a cross in their buildings.
DAVEH: Is that required to be a 'Christian' church? We simply
prefer to celebrate the Lord's life, not his death.
If
Mormons believe in the Biblical Jesus they are not a cult.
DAVEH: Then you should define what constitutes "Biblical
Jesus" so that we can see if we believe likewise.
But
this stuff about Jesus being created and the brother of Satan is suspect
at best and perhaps they have Satan and Jesus mixed up. I don't
trust Mormons not because they are liars, but because they are brainwashed.
Notice
Blainer says he agrees with "all" the below as "fundamental to Mormon belief",
but he does not believe
"Jesus is God the Son,
DAVEH: I must have missed something. Where/when did he say
that, Glenn?
second
Person of the Trinity." Is Blainer deliberately lying? I think
not.
DAVEH: I think not too. I bet you are just having a problem
with a beam in your eye preventing you from seeing what we are trying to
explain. ;-)
But
to me it is an obvious lie.

Blainer)
All fundamental to Mormon belief, Laura. But Glenn insists we
are still a
cult?
On Tue, 22 Oct
2002 07:53:24 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> When I took
a class on cults we were taught to start with what the
> "group"
> taught about
Jesus. If they didn't believe that Jesus was God the
> Son, born
> of the virgin
Mary, and that he was crucified,dead and buried, rose
> again
> and will come
again, then we should be suspicious. Laura
>
> > The major
reference "Cults Reference Bible" defines cults:
> >
> > A group
of people polarized about the religious interpretations or
>
> > teachings
of a specific individual or organization. IT ALWAYS
> CLAIMS TO
BE
> > IN HARMONY
WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING THAT
> JESUS
> > CHRIST IS
THE LORD GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH. Cults redefine
> doctrinal
> > terms to
conform to their own deviant theology.
> >
> > They also
say, "We're in agreement with the basic Christian
> message".
But
> > when you
start penetrating deeper into the system, you find out
> that there
> > is an essential
denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.
> >
> >
Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the
> Trinity.
> >
> > Jesus to
the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, the
> first
> > and mightiest
creation of Jehovah God.
> >
> > Jesus to
the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another
> god and
> > Mary, one
god in a pantheon of gods.
> >
> > Jesus to
the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-23 Thread Dave

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AGain,
you just ask questions without responding to what I say.
DAVEH: Your comments were directed to a discussion between Laura
and Blaine. I was merely commenting on some things that came to mindwhilst
I read your remarks.
 Now Glenn, if you will notice I asked you some questions
below, and YOU failed to answer them in this post. Are you the kettle
calling the pot black? :-)

Glenn
- I say Mormons are not plain on their belief in Jesus.

DAVEH:
What have I not tried to explain to you, Glenn? If my explanations
are not "plain" enough, I will repeat them as many times as you need.
I think it's my eternal goal to help you understand as a child, Brother
Glenn! :-)
They
seem to refuse to put up a cross in their buildings.
DAVEH:
Is that required to be a 'Christian' church? We simply prefer to
celebrate the Lord's life, not his death.
If
Mormons believe in the Biblical Jesus they are not a cult.

DAVEH:
Then you should define what constitutes "Biblical Jesus" so that we
can see if we believe likewise.
But
this stuff about Jesus being created and the brother of Satan is suspect
at best and perhaps they have Satan and Jesus mixed up. I don't
trust Mormons not because they are liars, but because they are brainwashed.
Notice
Blainer says he agrees with "all" the below as "fundamental to Mormon belief",
but he does not believe"Jesus is God the Son,

DAVEH:
I must have missed something. Where/when did he say that, Glenn?
second
Person of the Trinity." Is Blainer deliberately lying? I think
not.

DAVEH:
I think not too. I bet you are just having a problem with a beam
in your eye preventing you from seeing what we are trying to explain.
;-)
But
to me it is an obvious lie.

Blainer)
All fundamental to Mormon belief, Laura. But Glenn insists we
are still a
cult?
On Tue, 22 Oct
2002 07:53:24 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> When I took
a class on cults we were taught to start with what the
> "group"
> taught about
Jesus. If they didn't believe that Jesus was God the
> Son, born
> of the virgin
Mary, and that he was crucified,dead and buried, rose
> again
> and will come
again, then we should be suspicious. Laura
>
> > The major
reference "Cults Reference Bible" defines cults:
> >
> > A group
of people polarized about the religious interpretations or
>
> > teachings
of a specific individual or organization. IT ALWAYS
> CLAIMS TO
BE
> > IN HARMONY
WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING THAT
> JESUS
> > CHRIST IS
THE LORD GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH. Cults redefine
> doctrinal
> > terms to
conform to their own deviant theology.
> >
> > They also
say, "We're in agreement with the basic Christian
> message".
But
> > when you
start penetrating deeper into the system, you find out
> that there
> > is an essential
denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.
> >
> >
Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the
> Trinity.
> >
> > Jesus to
the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, the
> first
> > and mightiest
creation of Jehovah God.
> >
> > Jesus to
the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another
> god and
> > Mary, one
god in a pantheon of gods.
> >
> > Jesus to
the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-22 Thread CHamm56114

When I took a class on cults we were taught to start with what the "group" taught about Jesus. If they didn't believe that Jesus was God the Son, born of the virgin Mary, and that he was crucified,dead and buried, rose again and will come again, then we should be suspicious. Laura

The major reference "Cults Reference Bible" defines cults:

A group of people polarized about the religious interpretations or teachings of a specific individual or organization. IT ALWAYS CLAIMS TO BE IN HARMONY WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE LORD GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH. Cults redefine doctrinal terms to conform to their own deviant theology. 

They also say, "We're in agreement with the basic Christian message". But when you start penetrating deeper into the system, you find out that there is an essential denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the Trinity. 

Jesus to the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, the first and mightiest creation of Jehovah God.

Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another god and Mary, one god in a pantheon of gods.

Jesus to the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn wrote:
The major reference "Cults Reference Bible" defines cults:
A group of people polarized about the religious interpretations
or teachings of a specific individual or organization. IT
ALWAYS CLAIMS TO BE IN HARMONY WITH
CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP
DENYING THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE LORD
GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH.

David Miller wrote:
That's interesting. According to this definition,
Mormons are not a cult. :-)

Glenn wrote:
Wrong. Read who their Jesus is right below this.

Glenn, as long as you have been on this forum, you should know that Mormons
teach that Jesus Christ is the Lord God Jehovah of the Old Testament himself
in human flesh. All I'm saying is that your book has a lame definition,
because that definition does not include Mormons.

Glenn - WHAT? No way. Just because DaveL says so does not mean it is the official doctrine of the Mormons. He may or may not believe in the Biblcial Jesus. If they believe in the Biblical Jesus then they are not a cult. You have to see through their definitions.

The truth is that real scholars use the word cult in a much less derogatory
sense. It is the popular literature of Walter Martin and others who have
succeeded in making the word "cult" a nasty thing. Unfortunately, none of
them have come up with a good, clear definition of a cult. For example,
they argue among themselves whether the Seventh Day Adventists are a cult,
and Martin himself switched his position on this during his life. The only
definition of cult to pass muster is the scholarly one that does not
consider the word derogatory.

Glenn - LOL Anyone who disagree with you is wrong. Real scholars agree with you and those who don't are not real scholars. This is not perfection.
:-) Martin's definition is extremely clear.

So what's wrong with changing one's mind? That shows honest scholarship.
Peace be with you. YES, yes, yes, cult is a nasty thing.

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-22 Thread David Miller

Glenn wrote:
 Are you claiming the KJ Version is free?
 No, you are not.

Yes, I am saying that the King James Version is free.  You can download it
on many web sites for free.  You can get free Bible programs that include
the KJV (for example, at www.e-sword.net).  However, you cannot download the
NIV, and you cannot get the NIV in the free Bible programs because the NIV
publishers threaten legal action against anyone who tries to do it.  Does
that sound like Christian love to you?  It sounds like the love of money to
me.

There are not too many people speaking out about this, just like there are
not too many people speaking out about the sin of Viagra.  Nevertheless,
that doesn't mean that it gets a clean bill of health with me.  I see the
error just as plain as the nose on a person's face.

Glenn wrote:
 You have to pay for it.  In fact, just as
 much even without royalties.  Sounds
 like they are jacking up the price for
 the KJ.

What you pay for is an edition that a particular publisher might produce.
You are paying for the paper, the binding, the organization work effort to
produce it, perhaps maps and footnotes, etc.  However, you are not paying
for the version.  The words themselves are free, but the media it is printed
on is not.  I support the right of publishers to do this, and the right for
them to make a profit on doing it.  I support this right for any version of
the Bible, KJV and NIV.  And I don't care if the price is higher for KJV or
NIV.  Let the market pay whatever it will bear.

What I object to is the notion that a translation of God's Word cannot be
copied and shared freely by those who desire to do that.  This shows that
they believe that they own God's Word.  That is impossible.  Nobody owns
God's Word.  God's Word belongs to everyone.

Glenn wrote:
 There is no doubt in my mind that the KJ would
 charge royalties if they could.

You are wrong on this.  You seem to have no concept of public domain and
public ownership.  Should the government or some private corporation earn
royalities for reproducing the Constitution of the United States in
different languages?  Would that be right?  Think about it.  Of course it
would not be right.  The people own that document, just like the people own
the Word of God collectively, not some particular individual or corporation.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

OK, maybe I need a more balanced view of him. I don't think there is any doubt that he was immoral. I read an extensive article in seminary about the translators having a meeting to not translate "baptizo" as the King was not immersed. They didn't want to offend God and translate it sprinkling so they just did not translate it. The transliterated it. That way they did not offend God or the King in their mind. NOW, years later, maybe that article was bias, I don't know.

Glenn wrote:
David, if you are trying to claim your perfection
for King James, I have nothing to say, This is
ridiculous and you know it.

No, I don't think King James was perfect. However, I do think some
historians have demonized him because of his connection with the Bible.
When you demonize King James, you demonize the Bible that bears his name.

Your stance caused me to order a few books about him because I don't have
much in my library about him. I spent a whole day in the library many years
ago studying him, and I came to the conclusion that he was a much better guy
than some make him out to be. I have serious doubts about the homosexual
charges against him. They are based upon letters where he uses affectionate
terms for other men. This is similar to charges that Jesus was a homosexual
because of comments about John being the one who Jesus loved, or the one who
laid his head on Jesus's chest during the last supper. Therefore, I am very
skeptical of the charges. Many of his historians today do not believe that
he was a homosexual.

James was a good man in the sense that he worked very hard to bring harmony
among the many factious religious sects. He was not some unreligious
politician, but a very committed Christian who seriously studied God's Word,
both in English and in other languages like French, Latin, and Greek.
Nevertheless, he himself did not do any translation for the KJV. The idea
to do this translation was not even his, but rather a Puritan's idea, and
James agreed with it because he felt that the Geneva Bible, the popular
Bible of his day, was a poor translation (he had a good knowledge of Greek
and Latin). James especially did not like the many footnotes in the Geneva
Bible that he felt misled people away from what the Bible actually said, so
he wanted a translation without copious footnotes.

So, in summary, I consider King James as a Christian saved by grace, and not
the demon that malicious gossip has spread about him. When I get the books
that I ordered and read them, I will let you know if my perspective of him
changes a little bit. I have to admit that when I first studied him, I was
surprised that he was as good as he was, so it might be that I need to look
more critically about other things he did that might indicate a person that
was not of good character. Sometimes when we come across information that
surprises us, we focus too much on that and ignore perhaps other things that
indicate an evil character. For example, Solomon was the wisest man on
earth, but if we only looked at that, we might not recognize his problem
with womanizing that led to his downfall. Your comments reveal to me my
need to study this man a little more carefully.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Glenn - The Bible talks about this picking over every jot and tittle. Ever learning and never coming to the truth. I see no difference. I honestly don't. You pay either way. Furthermore, you are overlooking American copyright laws. What were/are the copyright laws in England? You are overlooking separation of church and state. The government cannot pay to translate the Bible here in America. The day will come also, when the NIV will not be copyrighted. 

Glenn wrote:
 Are you claiming the KJ Version is free?
 No, you are not.

Yes, I am saying that the King James Version is free. You can download it
on many web sites for free. You can get free Bible programs that include
the KJV (for example, at www.e-sword.net). However, you cannot download the
NIV, and you cannot get the NIV in the free Bible programs because the NIV
publishers threaten legal action against anyone who tries to do it. Does
that sound like Christian love to you? It sounds like the love of money to
me.

There are not too many people speaking out about this, just like there are
not too many people speaking out about the sin of Viagra. Nevertheless,
that doesn't mean that it gets a clean bill of health with me. I see the
error just as plain as the nose on a person's face.

Glenn wrote:
 You have to pay for it. In fact, just as
 much even without royalties. Sounds
 like they are jacking up the price for
 the KJ.

What you pay for is an edition that a particular publisher might produce.
You are paying for the paper, the binding, the organization work effort to
produce it, perhaps maps and footnotes, etc. However, you are not paying
for the version. The words themselves are free, but the media it is printed
on is not. I support the right of publishers to do this, and the right for
them to make a profit on doing it. I support this right for any version of
the Bible, KJV and NIV. And I don't care if the price is higher for KJV or
NIV. Let the market pay whatever it will bear.

What I object to is the notion that a translation of God's Word cannot be
copied and shared freely by those who desire to do that. This shows that
they believe that they own God's Word. That is impossible. Nobody owns
God's Word. God's Word belongs to everyone.

Glenn wrote:
 There is no doubt in my mind that the KJ would
 charge royalties if they could.

You are wrong on this. You seem to have no concept of public domain and
public ownership. Should the government or some private corporation earn
royalities for reproducing the Constitution of the United States in
different languages? Would that be right? Think about it. Of course it
would not be right. The people own that document, just like the people own
the Word of God collectively, not some particular individual or corporation.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-22 Thread David Miller

Glenn wrote:
 David, I can't comminute with you on this.
 You, my friend, Are so blinded on this subject
 it is unbelievable.  Baptizio is NOT a translation
 but a compromise; a transliteration.  They did
 not translate the word.  Much learning has made
 thee mad on this.  :-)

I understand that the word baptize is basically a transliteration.  But we
have many words in the English language that are simply transliterated
words.  Nothing is unusual about that.  All I was trying to say is that they
didn't exactly transliterate the word, otherwise it would be baptizo.  What
they did was keep a word that already was common in English, which was a
general transliteration, just like the word Peter is a transliteration of
Greek.

If you think that the word baptize was not part of the English language back
then, you are mistaken.  Is that what you think?  Is that why we are having
problems communicating?

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-22 Thread David Miller

Glenn wrote:
 WHAT?  No way.  Just because DaveL says so
 does not mean it is the official doctrine of the Mormons.

I read this also on the Mormon web site.

Glenn wrote:
 LOL  Anyone who disagree with you is wrong.  Real
 scholars agree with you and those who don't are not
 real scholars.This is not perfection. :-)  Martin's
 definition is extremely clear.

Let's examine Walter Martin's definition.  I posted something like this a
few years back, but let's do it again.

In Walter Martin's book, the Kingdom of the Cults, he says he agrees with
Dr. Braden's definition:

By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified.  A
cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in
one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups
which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our culture.

Now Walter Martin, in writing to the more general population (those who are
not scholars), adds to this definition by saying the following:

I may add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people
gathered about a specific person or person's misinterpretation of the
Bible.

This addition to the definition adds a very loaded word:
misinterpretation.  Who determines what is a misinterpretation?  This
starts the road to definitions such as you made that a cult is basically any
group that is not a Christian, or a group that denies that Jesus Christ is
God in the flesh.  Such definitions are vague because other undefined words
are used like misinterpretation of the Bible or Christian.  Furthermore,
Walter Martin deviates from Dr. Braden's definition significantly because
how can any Bible believing group look favorably upon any group that
misinterprets the Bible?  In other words, Walter Martin makes the word
cult derogatory, contrary to the definition of Dr. Braden, a definition
that Martin himself said he agreed with.

In the end, the fruit of Walter Martin's work in this area has led to strife
and division of all sorts as Christians start pointing the finger and
yelling, cult!

The word cult is not confined to Christianity.  It is used to talk about
sects in Judaism and Islam too, and used to talk about groups that have
nothing to do with the Bible.  So the path that Walter Martin took here, in
my opinion, missed the mark a little.  You might disagree, but at least
explain why you disagree.  Just scoffing at me and characterizing me as
saying things that I have not said is not making a rational case against my
perspective.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Mormons cannot be trusted. They are in a con game over the dumbing of America. They say what needs to be said in order to seduce people into hell fire.

Glenn wrote:
 WHAT? No way. Just because DaveL says so
 does not mean it is the official doctrine of the Mormons.

I read this also on the Mormon web site.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

DavidM. LOL

Who determines what is a misinterpretation?

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

Then herein lies a problem with the King James. Their guidlines were wrong to start with. Bad foundation. No decision was made to translate a word before they came to the word to translate. I find this hard to believe.

But it is OK to make money off of the KJ Bible by selling it, but not OK to make money off of the NIV Bible through royalties. Inconsistent is the way I see this. 

The King James translators drafted a number of rules to guide them. It was
agreed very early on that they would maintain ecclesiastical words and stick
as close to the Bishop's Bible as possible. I take this to mean that the
decision to use the word "baptize" was made before they even began, by
definition, without any debate, because the Bishop's Bible already used this
word.

Re: [TruthTalk] Sin Christian Perfection

2002-10-22 Thread bborrow26

Blainer)  All fundamental to Mormon belief, Laura.  But Glenn insists we
are still a cult?

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:53:24 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 When I took a class on cults we were taught to start with what the 
 group 
 taught about Jesus.  If they didn't believe that Jesus was God the 
 Son, born 
 of the virgin Mary, and that he was crucified,dead and buried,  rose 
 again 
 and will come again, then we should be suspicious.  Laura
 
  The major reference Cults Reference Bible defines cults:
  
  A group of people polarized about the religious interpretations or 
 
  teachings of a specific individual or organization.  IT ALWAYS 
 CLAIMS TO BE 
  IN HARMONY WITH CHRISTIANITY, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP DENYING THAT 
 JESUS 
  CHRIST IS THE LORD GOD HIMSELF IN HUMAN FLESH.  Cults redefine 
 doctrinal 
  terms to conform to their own deviant theology.  
  
  They also say, We're in agreement with the basic Christian 
 message.  But 
  when you start penetrating deeper into the system, you find out 
 that there 
  is an essential denial of the Person of Jesus Christ.
  
  Jesus to the Christian means God the Son, second Person of the 
 Trinity.  
  
  Jesus to the Jehovah's Witness connotes Michael the archangel, the 
 first 
  and mightiest creation of Jehovah God.
  
  Jesus to the Mormon signifies a polygamous offspring of another 
 god and 
  Mary, one god in a pantheon of gods.
  
  Jesus to the Christian Scientist is the divine Idea of God. 
 

--
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] Sin Christian Perfection