----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal
sonship of Christ
Judy writes > Yes, Nathan was the
prophet and his words were inspired by God since this was the anointing for his
ministry - fourfold restitution was what is required under the law of
Moses.
So what is the problem Bill? . . .
BT > The problem
is, Judy, you have evidently missed the point. Without some
"non-biblical" input to place my answer in context, you misunderstood my
use of Scripture to say to you what "God says using God's words." No
problem, I will add some commentary of my own to try to help you with the
context.
You are guilty of doing the very
thing you expect others not to do. The pertinent statement in my use of the
Nathan/David account was this: "You are the man!" Yes, David could have had
Nathan killed -- but he didn't. Instead, not playing insinsate, he got the
point of Nathan's parable and repented of his wrong doing; that is, he was
quilty as charged; he knew it; and rather than skirt the issue, he took
responsibility for his actions.
How does this pertain to you? You
have yet to take responsibility for yours. Concerning the use of non-biblical
terminology to speak to biblical concepts, you make the following
claim: "You may all do this Bill but one speaking as the 'oracles of God'
says what God says using God's Words . . . Reaping what we sow is God's
righteous judgment."
Judy, you are complicit in doing
the same thing; e.g., you have written concerning the Godhead, "They were one in
all aspects and operated like a symphony," and "I would demonstrate the Godhead
this way: God the Father has the thought; God the Word speaks it into existence;
and God the Spirit carries it out. So you see the Godhead as one working in
harmony, like a symphony."
Debbie wrote this to you:
"When talking about God or what he is saying to us in the Bible, I
am sure I use terms which are not in any translation or manuscript
of Scripture." As do you, Judy, as witnessed above. Hence, with her,
why do you not also "find it strange and arbitrary to make a
rule of avoiding doing so"? You do not apply your own rules to yourself. And as I said before,
nor ought you have to. The problem here is not with the language you
use; it is with your unreasonable expectation concerning the language of others,
whether it be mine or Debbie's or anyone else's. In other words, you
need to change your standards. They are
untenable -- not even you can meet them. And so, the question is, are you going
to continue to skirt the issue, or are you going to drop the attack on others,
take responsibility for your actions and change your standards?
Bill (By the way, DaveH and G: I
am preparing responses to your requests. I will get them out when this conflict
is resolved -- if, that is, it can be
resolved)
