Thank you. And if any on this forum were to respond by saying, "On yeah, I have more blessings than you" I would smile, nod my head in agreement and say "praise the Lord."
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:41:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
Actually, when John said, "...I would make you jealous", I thought he was using a metaphor to say "I have many blessings", or "you would be surprised at how much I have been blessed". I didn't think he was really assuming any other believer would be jealous. We use similar phrases all the time. "I have more blessings than Carter has pills". (How many pills does Carter have?) "I have more blessings than you can shake a stick at!". (Exactly how many is too many to shake a stick at?)
Was I being naive in reading his comment that way? Do you think he seriously meant that you would really be jealous? Maybe he did...I don't know.
Perry
>From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:33:56 -0400
>
>This is so true Izzy - I hope and pray for many more blessings on both JD
>and Bill . Judyt
>
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:05:42 -0500 "ShieldsFamily"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Judy, I find it interesting the JD would assume that another Believer
>would be ?jealous? of his blessings. That is a mighty sour assumption
>for one walking in love. Love rejoices at the blessings of another, and
>such is what we Believers walk in. Love also assumes the best of others
>unless there is a compelling reason not to. I wish only many more
>blessings to you JD, Izzy
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
>
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:42:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>No blessing????? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused
>you really are. On many occasions,
>I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I
>would make you jealous. I will leave it at that.
>
>jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would get
>that idea. To each his own.
>Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt
>
>My life is absolutely full of blessings from God, Judy.
>
>jt: Not surprising since He blesses both the just and the unjust.
>
>I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you
>admitted. Why you did not read
>them is beyond me.
>
>jt: Oh! You are calling obedience "manipulation" - what a travesty. We
>truly are in the last days when men will not
>endure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of a
>hat you know . As for Gary -: Honest?
>Most of the time noone knows what he is saying
>
>The travesty, here, is that you beliefve and teach others a gospel that
>simply does not work.
>
>jt: What do you mean "does not work?" Does God have to "work for us"
>before we choose His way?
>Rather we serve Him...
>
>No one argues against obedience. But to say that obedience (doing this
>right and doing that right) is a cornstone in our salvation is plain old
>pure false teaching IMO.
>
>jt: You do argue against it constantly JD and you have even renamed it
>"works salvation"
>
>Such people deny the Spirit of God for others and lead people into a walk
>that is no different from the
>core beliefs (on this subject) from the Mormons, the RCC and the JW's..
>
>
>jt: Plain old unadulterated nonsense JD. What I believe and practice has
>nothing at all to do with any
>of the above which are all exclusive man made hierarchies.
>
>I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM.
>
>jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you still
>call that honest? Where is discernment?
>
>What if I have been wrong about YOU !!! To date, I have refused to
>consider "w hat if" when it comes to those on this forum.........even with
>our Mormon friends. Please tell me why I should consider you to be
>honest and Gary to be something else.
>
>jt: I don't think you should be judging either of us personally JD and if
>you are unable to recognize whether or not a person speaks truth by God's
>Word then it is worse than a pointless endeavor.
>
>Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching.
> Now, that is what I believe.
>
>jt: Nobody I know of on TT has been discussing "works salvationism" JD so
>this is a construct of your own mind.
>
>Do you know why you resist " works salvationists" ? Because you know
>that "works salvationism"
>is false doctrine.
>
>jt: Works salvationism is a non Biblical term that I never have any
>reason to have to deal with. I don't
>go to those places - but then you would probably define the PCA Church I
>do attend that way since
>they teach that true faith will have corresponding actions or fruit that
>are evident in the lives of thos
>who profess to have it.
>
>Probably a roll-over from your CofC legalism trauma. Fact is God is and
>always has been a God of Covenant
>and his ppl are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Lance has
>some pie in the sky idea that for us
>the covenant is unilateral meaning that God does the lot and we just go
>on our merry way. His doctrine may
>back this up but the scriptures certainly do not.
>
>I am going to start tracking the times when you have answered a question
>with pure speculation or avoided my questioning (or others) altogether.
> When the time is right -- you are going to be startled. Your tactic,
>at that time, will included accussing me of cut and paste and other such
>dishonest endeavors -- but that tactic will be considered as I track
>you and your buds on this action. It will take perhaps six months. I
>will be fully silent on this -- you all will forget I am doing this
>and then BAM> :-)
>
>jt: What mak es you think that any of us will accept such tactics as God
>inspired or true? I'm human and
>miss it at times but then so do you JD.
>
>I assume G feels the same. You will disagree, of course. We cannot help
>but to speak and write out of our theological construct. Your construct
> includes (apparently) the idea that you can judge a fellow Christian to
>be a disciple of Satan
>and that you should tell them this -- even frequently. Ditto for
>kevin and shields.
>
>jt:: I can discern what comes from your own mouth/keyboard John and
>recognize the source. Accusation is never ablessing.
>
>i DON'T NEED TO DISCERN ANYTHING IN THIS PRESENT DISTRESS. ALL I NEED
>TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO READ. If you do not see the source in my life as
>being the Spirit of God, you and all who agree with you are have nothing
>to do with God in that consideration. Nothing. And you transgress I
>don't know how many scriptures ------------- thank God we don;t have
>to be right to be saved.
>
>jt: Accusation is destructive. It is never from God - it's source is
>always the accuser of the brethren. I am
>not saying that you are serving Satan. We all must deal with accusing
>spirits but we don't have to allow
>them to use our mouths and this is what I am trying to get you to see.
>The Holy Spirit convicts and that
>is entirely different allowing us to deal with personal transgression in
>the right way.
>
>DM actually does not do this (in my memory) although he might defend
>others for so writing. The point, here, is that
>G will speak and write from his passion. He will see associations
>between your words and what you are that may
>not be pleasant to you. So what.
>
>jt: So why are you defending Gary and his one word comments? It's not
>good to partake of another man's sin.
>
>This last phrase is exactly why I do defend Gary and resist you on this
>-- sin, Judy. You are in serious
>error on this matter.
>
>jt: I don't think so JD. If Gary thinks Izzy and I are full of myth or
>that we are practicing manipulation
>so far as God is concerned then he is obligated to spell it out and show
>us by God's Word where we
>are missing the mark. Scorn and mocking stand in the way of the sinner.
>
> ;All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor
>Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Slade nor Debbie nor Caroline
>Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan --
> being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I
>prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as
>an honest response.
>
>jt: Why is it offensive to you to realize your mouth can and is being
>used by the wrong spirit?
>
>Because such is a lie ................................ it is not
>moment of ignorance on the part of those who claim such, it is a lie. I
>KNOW WHOM I SERVE, JUDY. No one on this forum would argue that I serve
>Satan except a liar. Hopefully that is not your position. If anyone
>from the left or the right thinks for a second that I am going to back
>off on this - well you are wrong. But, I am ready to move on to
>matters of biblical substance........just ftr.
>
>jt: I never accused you of serving Satan JD; this is another accusation
>and comes from the same source.
>I am saying that you can unknowingly be used by him the same as James,
>John, and Peter were and I
>don't believe for one moment that those three were serving Satan any more
>than I believe that you
>are intentionally serving Satan.
>
> Jesus said the same
>to the sons of thunder; he told them they didn't know what spirit they
>were of. He flat out confronted Peter and said
>"Get behind me Satan, you savour the things of man rather tha n the things
>of God" (my paraphrase). Obedience
>is not works it is normal christian living.
>
>"not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by
>obedience to law."
>
>jt: We are saved by obedience to Christ who said "If you love me you will
>do what I say"
>
>Scripture please --------------- preferably a scripture that does not
>need to be reworded.
>
>"If ye love me keep my commandments" (John 14:15)
>
>judyt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com> ;
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]
>Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are
>doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much
>as ours because not only does continual accusation wear us out - You/Gary
>will never reap blessing so long as
>you are allowing the adversary to use you this way.
>
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad
>behavior, ignoring the possibility that
>Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in
>reality, an attempt to manipulate God.
>
>jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to
>manipulate God?
>
> "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this."
>Such can be considered manipulation --
>
>jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This
>is where the blessings of obedience
>happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they
>preferred His acts - only Moses knew
>them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make
>spiritual judgments between them.
>
>especially when such thinking is not founded in scr ipture (i.e.works
>salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological
>opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in
>his appraisal without accusing either Judy or
>Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable
>action.
>
>jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he
>has been openly accusing so I don't
>know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is
>not works it is normal christian
>living. judyt
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>JD wrote:
> > Judy writes this YOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER
> > That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core.
>
>Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a
>personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then
>slugs back, is it really fair to focus all our criticism on the man who
>slugged back in response to the first? I'm not trying to justify her,
>but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we
>got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all
>turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the
>root of the problem and then the rest is taken car e of as a result.
>
>Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying
>and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hoping to
>help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is
>cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be.
>In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an
>accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his
>misbehavior.
>
>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.
Was I being naive in reading his comment that way? Do you think he seriously meant that you would really be jealous? Maybe he did...I don't know.
Perry
>From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:33:56 -0400
>
>This is so true Izzy - I hope and pray for many more blessings on both JD
>and Bill . Judyt
>
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:05:42 -0500 "ShieldsFamily"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Judy, I find it interesting the JD would assume that another Believer
>would be ?jealous? of his blessings. That is a mighty sour assumption
>for one walking in love. Love rejoices at the blessings of another, and
>such is what we Believers walk in. Love also assumes the best of others
>unless there is a compelling reason not to. I wish only many more
>blessings to you JD, Izzy
>
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
>
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:42:18 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>No blessing????? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused
>you really are. On many occasions,
>I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I
>would make you jealous. I will leave it at that.
>
>jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would get
>that idea. To each his own.
>Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt
>
>My life is absolutely full of blessings from God, Judy.
>
>jt: Not surprising since He blesses both the just and the unjust.
>
>I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you
>admitted. Why you did not read
>them is beyond me.
>
>jt: Oh! You are calling obedience "manipulation" - what a travesty. We
>truly are in the last days when men will not
>endure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of a
>hat you know . As for Gary -: Honest?
>Most of the time noone knows what he is saying
>
>The travesty, here, is that you beliefve and teach others a gospel that
>simply does not work.
>
>jt: What do you mean "does not work?" Does God have to "work for us"
>before we choose His way?
>Rather we serve Him...
>
>No one argues against obedience. But to say that obedience (doing this
>right and doing that right) is a cornstone in our salvation is plain old
>pure false teaching IMO.
>
>jt: You do argue against it constantly JD and you have even renamed it
>"works salvation"
>
>Such people deny the Spirit of God for others and lead people into a walk
>that is no different from the
>core beliefs (on this subject) from the Mormons, the RCC and the JW's..
>
>
>jt: Plain old unadulterated nonsense JD. What I believe and practice has
>nothing at all to do with any
>of the above which are all exclusive man made hierarchies.
>
>I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM.
>
>jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you still
>call that honest? Where is discernment?
>
>What if I have been wrong about YOU !!! To date, I have refused to
>consider "w hat if" when it comes to those on this forum.........even with
>our Mormon friends. Please tell me why I should consider you to be
>honest and Gary to be something else.
>
>jt: I don't think you should be judging either of us personally JD and if
>you are unable to recognize whether or not a person speaks truth by God's
>Word then it is worse than a pointless endeavor.
>
>Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching.
> Now, that is what I believe.
>
>jt: Nobody I know of on TT has been discussing "works salvationism" JD so
>this is a construct of your own mind.
>
>Do you know why you resist " works salvationists" ? Because you know
>that "works salvationism"
>is false doctrine.
>
>jt: Works salvationism is a non Biblical term that I never have any
>reason to have to deal with. I don't
>go to those places - but then you would probably define the PCA Church I
>do attend that way since
>they teach that true faith will have corresponding actions or fruit that
>are evident in the lives of thos
>who profess to have it.
>
>Probably a roll-over from your CofC legalism trauma. Fact is God is and
>always has been a God of Covenant
>and his ppl are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Lance has
>some pie in the sky idea that for us
>the covenant is unilateral meaning that God does the lot and we just go
>on our merry way. His doctrine may
>back this up but the scriptures certainly do not.
>
>I am going to start tracking the times when you have answered a question
>with pure speculation or avoided my questioning (or others) altogether.
> When the time is right -- you are going to be startled. Your tactic,
>at that time, will included accussing me of cut and paste and other such
>dishonest endeavors -- but that tactic will be considered as I track
>you and your buds on this action. It will take perhaps six months. I
>will be fully silent on this -- you all will forget I am doing this
>and then BAM> :-)
>
>jt: What mak es you think that any of us will accept such tactics as God
>inspired or true? I'm human and
>miss it at times but then so do you JD.
>
>I assume G feels the same. You will disagree, of course. We cannot help
>but to speak and write out of our theological construct. Your construct
> includes (apparently) the idea that you can judge a fellow Christian to
>be a disciple of Satan
>and that you should tell them this -- even frequently. Ditto for
>kevin and shields.
>
>jt:: I can discern what comes from your own mouth/keyboard John and
>recognize the source. Accusation is never ablessing.
>
>i DON'T NEED TO DISCERN ANYTHING IN THIS PRESENT DISTRESS. ALL I NEED
>TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO READ. If you do not see the source in my life as
>being the Spirit of God, you and all who agree with you are have nothing
>to do with God in that consideration. Nothing. And you transgress I
>don't know how many scriptures ------------- thank God we don;t have
>to be right to be saved.
>
>jt: Accusation is destructive. It is never from God - it's source is
>always the accuser of the brethren. I am
>not saying that you are serving Satan. We all must deal with accusing
>spirits but we don't have to allow
>them to use our mouths and this is what I am trying to get you to see.
>The Holy Spirit convicts and that
>is entirely different allowing us to deal with personal transgression in
>the right way.
>
>DM actually does not do this (in my memory) although he might defend
>others for so writing. The point, here, is that
>G will speak and write from his passion. He will see associations
>between your words and what you are that may
>not be pleasant to you. So what.
>
>jt: So why are you defending Gary and his one word comments? It's not
>good to partake of another man's sin.
>
>This last phrase is exactly why I do defend Gary and resist you on this
>-- sin, Judy. You are in serious
>error on this matter.
>
>jt: I don't think so JD. If Gary thinks Izzy and I are full of myth or
>that we are practicing manipulation
>so far as God is concerned then he is obligated to spell it out and show
>us by God's Word where we
>are missing the mark. Scorn and mocking stand in the way of the sinner.
>
> ;All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor
>Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Slade nor Debbie nor Caroline
>Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan --
> being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I
>prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as
>an honest response.
>
>jt: Why is it offensive to you to realize your mouth can and is being
>used by the wrong spirit?
>
>Because such is a lie ................................ it is not
>moment of ignorance on the part of those who claim such, it is a lie. I
>KNOW WHOM I SERVE, JUDY. No one on this forum would argue that I serve
>Satan except a liar. Hopefully that is not your position. If anyone
>from the left or the right thinks for a second that I am going to back
>off on this - well you are wrong. But, I am ready to move on to
>matters of biblical substance........just ftr.
>
>jt: I never accused you of serving Satan JD; this is another accusation
>and comes from the same source.
>I am saying that you can unknowingly be used by him the same as James,
>John, and Peter were and I
>don't believe for one moment that those three were serving Satan any more
>than I believe that you
>are intentionally serving Satan.
>
> Jesus said the same
>to the sons of thunder; he told them they didn't know what spirit they
>were of. He flat out confronted Peter and said
>"Get behind me Satan, you savour the things of man rather tha n the things
>of God" (my paraphrase). Obedience
>is not works it is normal christian living.
>
>"not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by
>obedience to law."
>
>jt: We are saved by obedience to Christ who said "If you love me you will
>do what I say"
>
>Scripture please --------------- preferably a scripture that does not
>need to be reworded.
>
>"If ye love me keep my commandments" (John 14:15)
>
>judyt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com> ;
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]
>Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are
>doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much
>as ours because not only does continual accusation wear us out - You/Gary
>will never reap blessing so long as
>you are allowing the adversary to use you this way.
>
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad
>behavior, ignoring the possibility that
>Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in
>reality, an attempt to manipulate God.
>
>jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to
>manipulate God?
>
> "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this."
>Such can be considered manipulation --
>
>jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This
>is where the blessings of obedience
>happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they
>preferred His acts - only Moses knew
>them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make
>spiritual judgments between them.
>
>especially when such thinking is not founded in scr ipture (i.e.works
>salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological
>opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in
>his appraisal without accusing either Judy or
>Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable
>action.
>
>jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he
>has been openly accusing so I don't
>know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is
>not works it is normal christian
>living. judyt
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
>JD wrote:
> > Judy writes this YOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER
> > That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core.
>
>Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a
>personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then
>slugs back, is it really fair to focus all our criticism on the man who
>slugged back in response to the first? I'm not trying to justify her,
>but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we
>got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all
>turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the
>root of the problem and then the rest is taken car e of as a result.
>
>Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying
>and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hoping to
>help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is
>cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be.
>In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an
>accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his
>misbehavior.
>
>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.
