� Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> David, > > �� You have missed the point of my post. DAVEH:� Yeah.....I think so. > For some reason I am not surprised. > The topic is not the Trinity. DAVEH:� Then why did you mention it if you didn't want me to respond to it. > I only raised that as an example, DAVEH:� Hmmmmm......I see.� I guess I just used your explanation of not understanding it as an example of why I didn't understand your explanation. > one that we > hashed out some time ago, and I will not be drawn into that trap again DAVEH:� Of course not.� You wouldn't want to be trapped by an ignorant Mormon. > so > that you can avoid the other points I made. DAVEH:� When you said you didn't understand it, I suppose I figured your other points were somewhat irrelevant, Perry. > � The topic was your insincere desire to "learn what protestants believe and > why they believe it", why your biblical responses appear to be prooftexts, > and how you can increase your credibility DAVEH:� I don't remember trying to increase my credibility. > by supporting your beliefs with > your extra-biblical documents. DAVEH:� I did mention my extra-Biblical perspective so that you would understand why I don't believe I am prooftexting. > Although that will prove nothing it will show > us why you believe the way you do, and show us why you (and other LDS) must > prooftext to support your extra-biblical documents. DAVEH:� From my perspective, you've got the cart before the horse, Perry.� But I'm sure you'd say the same thing about me. ��� Perhaps I don't understand your perspective on prooftexting.� How is it that you think I use 1Cor 15:29 to prooftext baptism for the dead? > Perry > > >From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Natural birth or baptism? > >Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:48:10 -0700 > > > > > > > >Charles Perry Locke wrote: > > > > > Actually, Izzy, I figured this out in my first response to DavidH last > > > December when I first joined TT. I have been watching for the last 6 > >months > > > to see if my initial impressions were correct...and they have been > >proven > > > out several times since then. > > > > > > Last December, being new to the group, DaveH posted that he wanted to > >learn > > > how Protestants view the Trinity. > > > >DAVEH:� I first posed that question several years ago, Perry.� And I'm > >still don't understand it, as I don't think (m)any of the other TTers fully > >understand it.� As I remember, there was even some disagreement amongst > >TTers about it.� Here is one TTer's > >comment about it........ > >======================== > >"Discussing the Trinity?� Now you REALLY want to start something!� :-) > > > >Quite a few church councils and nearly 2,000 years of discussion haven't > >resolved the matter to the satisfaction of everyone professing belief in > >Christ, and it's not my place to judge that belief. Needless to say, > >Mormons are not the only ones who have problems with the doctrine, or with > >the definitions.� "Trinity" means different things to different people." > >======================== > > > > > He came across as genuine to me. I took > > > his bait, and responded with a treatise on how Protestants view the > >trinity. > > > > > > I was shocked to discover that his response was not one of someone who > >had > > > just learned something that he had said he wanted to learn, or asked > > > questions about parts he may not have understood. It was a full-on > >rebuttal > > > from the LDS perspective of what I had written. > > > > > > I fault myself for falling for the ploy. > > > > > In my zeal as a newbie to be able > > > to explain the Trinity to someone who seemed to genuinely want to learn > >I > > > overlooked the statement that DaveH made that should have tipped me off. > > > >DAVEH:� ROTFLOL�� Now Perry, you almost had me feeling sorry for you about > >that, had I not remembered that we had quite a few exchanges with you > >off-forum about the time you joined TT.� And......it was you who first > >contacted me to try to denigrate LDS > >theology. > > > > > He > > > said that he had been asking this question for three years, and no one > >had > > > been able to explain it to him yet. Well, if he hasn't learned it in > >three > > > years, he does not want to learn it. He only wants to argue about it. > > > >DAVEH:� Perhaps your explanation included too much "mystery"........ > > > >++++++++++++++++++++ > >2. There are three co-existant, but separate and distinct "persons" > >combined > >in a single God, which are called out in the Bible as the Father, the Son, > >and the Holy Spirit. Traditional Christianity adopts this resolution, which > >avoids polytheism, but introduces a cognitive dissonance due to our lack of > >ability to fully understand this "mystery". > > > >�� So, in conclusion, the word "Trinity" is used by traditional Christians > >to express a paradoxical concept that is in the Scriptures, and the > >Trinitarian doctrine was developed to provide a resolution to this paradox, > >although it does include a "mystery". > >++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >........to make it easily understood by me, Perry.� When you learn it, THEN > >you can explain it to me.� Until then, may I assume you will not "fully > >understand this "mystery"? > > > > > Perry > > > > > > >From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Natural birth or baptism? > > > >Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 22:01:27 -0500 > > > > > > > >Perry, Congratulations; you have finally figured out what I figured out > > > >LONG > > > >ago! You are quicker than most! Izzy > > > >> >From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> >DAVEH:� I have repeatedly explained why I am on TT, Perry.� Do you > >not > > > > > > > > >remember?� I am here to learn what Protestants believe and why they > > > >believe > > > > > > > > > > > > >that way.� Do you have a problem with that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Well, yes I do. And the problem I have is that the first time I > > > >communicated > > > > > > > > > > > >with you on TT, I took your bait and discovered that you were not at > >all > > > > > > > >interested in learning what protestants believe as you state. When > >someone > > > > > > > >describes to you what a protestant believes, usually at your request to > >do > > > > > > > >so, you never respond as though you have learned anything at all about > >what > > > > > > > >protestants believe, but only respond with a rebuttal, and why you > >believe > > > > > > > >it is false, and why protestants are wrong, and the LDS are right. If > >you > > > > > > > >truly wanted to learn, I would expect to hear something from you like > > > >"Oh,so > > > > > > > > > > > >that's why Protestants believe that way" instead of something like, > >"Now, > > > > > > > >here is why that is wrong...". I have never heard anything like the > >former, > > > > > > > >only like the latter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hey, it is great that you have a strong faith, but at least examine > >your > > > > > > > >motives and be honest about them. You do not really want to know what > > > > > > > >protestants believe. If you do, it is not to learn...it is to try to > >prove > > > > > > > >them wrong. I repeat, I have yet to see you indicate in any way that > >you > > > > > > > >have learned what you say you want to learn, and have seen only > >rebuttals > > > >to > > > > > > > > > > > >the way protestants believe. Maybe you can't (or don't want) to see it, > >but > > > > > > > >I'll bet (figuratively) that others on this forum can see it as well. > >(Most > > > > > > > >are just more polite than I am about it!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >DAVEH:� LOL.......Well Perry, you may think they are "prooftexts", > >but > > > >from > > > > > > > > > > > > >my perspective you are lacking perspective.� For example, you seem to > > > >think > > > > > > > > > > > > >we practice baptism for the dead because we have prooftexted 1Cor > >15:29. > > > > > > > > >Nothing can be further from the truth.� In reality, we practice it > > > >because > > > > > > > > >of latter-day revelation.� It is your lack of perspective that gives > >you > > > > > > > > >the perception that we prooftext such passages.� The same applies to > >many > > > > > > > > >other doctrines.� We believe the Lord has revealed much more of his > > > >Gospel, > > > > > > > > > > > > >which makes it easier to understand that which was previously > >revealed. > > > >I > > > > > > > > >realize you don't accept that, but it explains why we view things a > >bit > > > > > > > > >differently and why (from your limited perspective) you think we > > > >sometimes > > > > > > > > >prooftext. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yes, David, I lack the perspective of the extra-biblical works that the > >LDS > > > > > > > >use. And, that is because I do not accept them as works revealed by > >God. > > > > > > > >Keep in mind that I do not question whether or not they are revealed > > > > > > > >works...I question by whom they were revealed! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Consider that if you are basing your opinions on extra-biblical texts, > >and > > > > > > > >trying to prove them with a single, weak, and stretched verse from the > > > > > > > >Bible, it will appear, from a purely Biblical perspective, that you are > > > > > > > >prooftexting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Now, from my perspective, which is based on the Bible, and not on > > > > > > > >extra-biblical works, you definitely are prooftexting. The Bible verses > > > >that > > > > > > > > > > > >you quote to support LDS heresies are nothing more than verses you > >twist to > > > > > > > >support your extra-biblical LDS doctrine. They are taken out of > >context, > > > > > > > >twisted to mean something other than what they say, and then flaunted > >as > > > > > > > >proof of the heresy. I have read some of LDS's apologists on these > >topics > > > > > > > >(Noel Reynolds, Hugh Nibley), and I am amazed at the extent these > > > >supposedly > > > > > > > > > > > >wise and learned men will go to make a biblical text fit the LDS mold. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Now, if you want credibility, quote your LDS extra-biblical works to > >make > > > > > > > >your point. Although I will not accept them as proof of anything at > >all, > > > >but > > > > > > > > > > > >at least I will understand why you have to twist the Biblical texts so > > > > > > > >badly. For that I would respect you much more than for trying to get > >the > > > > > > > >Bible alone to support LDS fairytales. It just doesn't, and you can't > >make > > > > > > > >it. Hugh Nibley and Noel Reynolds can't, either. In fact, JS couldn't > > > > > > > >either. That is why he had to come up with some extra-biblical > >heretical > > > > > > > >works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. � ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
