RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT

[ShieldsFamily]

Yes.  You think everyone is right except for the “fundies”.  Iz   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:53 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT   Did you understand me to be saying otherwise? (now or ever) ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 27, 2005 08:33 Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT   “Diverse understandings” of scripture by genuine believers is obvious.  But not diverse “accurate” understanding.  Just because “genuine” believers have differing “understandings” does not make them all accurate.  Iz   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT   Any inclination, Judy, to tell us that, in all cases, when you cite Scripture in support of some position or other, that that citation is, in reality, the sole meaning of that/those Scripture(s)? Do you at least acknowledge that diverse understandings exist, by genuine believers (exclude me if need be) on TT? How 'bout BSF?  ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 27, 2005 05:44 Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] mormon angels. was: Dave uses Socratic Method of Teaching LDS doctrine on TT   It's only IYO Lance because your own lack of understanding stands out like a sore thumb most of the time and because all you will accept is your own theology there will never be other than theological Bable in your eyes.   On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:23:40 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: There are a variety of understandings for Satan in Job, the serpent in Genesis, the Nephilim in Genesis and on and on...........Why it is that some balk at my little formula continues to puzzle me when, IMO, all TT participants demonstrate it's accuracy regularly. (Text + believer + Spirit + tradition (optional) = theological Babel) From: Dave Hansen DAVEH:  Thanx for your reply, Christine.  I hope somebody else will give me some insight as to how non-LDS folks perceive this. Christine Miller wrote: Hm. Actually, Dave, I do not know how to answer you. I remember God constantly referred to Ezekiel as "Son of Man," so there is a distinction made in the Old Testament, where "sons of God" seemed to mean angels (for instance, in Gen. 6 where the sons of God looked upon the daughters of man as fair). It seems the New Testament speaks of a spiritual adoption. However, I'm not sure I have offered a full explanation of my stance.   Are there any TTers who might wish to offer wisdom here? How do the "sons of God" in the OT differ from the "sons of God" in the NT?   Blessings  Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH:   Christine, how do you understand Job 1:6........ Now thee was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. ........Do you believe the sons of God are similar in context as are the children of God? Christine Miller wrote:  The Bible is very clear on what it means to be a child of God and a brother of Jesus. It requires interpretation to communicate at all, but when something is stated blankly (John 1:12), how much spin can we add before we are misinterpreting? Perhaps I could have said "misinterpret" instead of "disregard," but I do believe the Mormons are genuinely ignoring the Bible's stance on this one.   Blessings!         -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.