Re: [TruthTalk] This Fred Phelps character
DaveH wrote: > From what DavidM explained in yesterday's post > (which I'd like to respond to, IF I ever get enough > time!), such an action would be illegal as it is denying > somebody's constitutional rights.Is that correct, > DavidM? I'm not sure what you are thinking might be illegal. There are several things that might start restricting your right to free speech, for example: 1) carrying large banners with poles / sticks that could be used as weapons, 2) using amplification, 3) using language that incites people to riot, 4) false speech, such as yelling fire in a theater or issuing a false bomb threat. At events, the police like to organize protestors and most go along with that. They will fence or rope off areas in order to separate people on opposite sides of an issue, thereby preventing physical fights and rioting. Often the police cross the line with their activities in this way because they begin to think that protestors must comply with their free speech zones that they create. The truth is that such organization is really voluntary in the eyes of federal law, but most protestors would rather comply than go through arrest and trial before being acquited. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- "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] Question for Dave H
michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: >[17] And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little >children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. >[18] For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Also, Nephi seems to directly contradict Paul. I Cor 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Clearly, Nephi's claim of all children being the same to God can't be true. What say you? DAVEH: Are you suggesting that Paul was saying that the "unclean" children would be destined for hell, Michael? Michael D: My only point in raising this is that what Nephi says about God, and what Paul says are in great contradiction. Do you agree with that? DAVEH: No, not at all. To understand them in a contradictory way would require one to think that being 'unclean' (as Paul meant here) means an automatic trip to hell. Is that what you believe, Michael? IOW, if one of those unclean children had died, he would be condemned to hell without a chance of Christ redemptive grace.Is that correct? Michael D: Dave H, The question here is that an emphatic statement by Nephi, is contradictory to a clearly stated one by Paul. It would be interesting to get your/the LDS explanation on it. I really would appreciate that. DAVEH: I've tried explaining it, Michael. But it seems to be a one way conversation. To me, the "unclean" comment does not necessarily mean those kids are condemned to hell, as it must seem to you. Why do you think the two comments are contradictory??? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~
Re: [TruthTalk] This Fred Phelps character
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He is the one who carried signs during the Columbine High School Memorial Service, Littleton, CO. saying God hated the fag students who were killed. The police gave him a fenched off area DAVEH: This is interesting, Glenn. From what DavidM explained in yesterday's post (which I'd like to respond to, IF I ever get enough time!), such an action would be illegal as it is denying somebody's constitutional rights.Is that correct, DavidM? so he would not start a riot. I know this because my wife knew some of the students there. She ministered to them after the tragedy. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~
[TruthTalk] Courtesy of Jim, a Net Friend
BIG TROUBLE A couple had two little boys, ages 8 and 10, who were excessively mischievous. They were always getting into trouble and their parents knew that, if any mischief occurred in their town their sons were probably involved. The boys' mother heard that a clergyman in town had been successful in disciplining children, so she asked if he would speak with her boys. The clergyman agreed, but asked to see them individually. So the mother sent her 8-year-old first, in the morning, with the older boy to see the clergyman in the afternoon. The clergyman, a huge man with a booming voice, sat the younger boy down and asked him sternly, "Where is God"? The boy's mouth dropped open, but he made no response, sitting there with his mouth hanging open, wide-eyed. So the clergyman repeated the question in an ever sterner tone, "Where is God!"?. Again the boy made no attempt to answer. The clergyman raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face and bellowed, "WHERE IS GOD?" The boy screamed and bolted from the room, ran directly home and dove into his closet, slamming the door behind him. When his older brother found him in the closet, he asked, "What happened?" The younger brother, gasping for breath, replied "We are in BIG trouble this time dude. God is missing - and they think WE DID IT!" -- ~~~ 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] I've see a lot of this on TT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I canot discuss what I don't believe. You say you are on TT in order fo find out what Christians believe. Well I believe the Godhead and Trinity are exactly the same thing. That's what I believe. DAVEH: I understand that. What I don't understand is the 'substance' part of the T-Doctrine. Would you please be so kind as to explain it to me. DAVEH: Yes, but I am surprised you would ask that question. (It seems that I have previously said such numerous times.) It seems to me we should be discussing my perceived differences between the Godhead and the T-Doctrine. As an 'outsider' to traditional Catholic and Protestant theology, I have trouble understanding how you believe the T-Doctrine and Godhead are the same when the T-Doctrine seems so purposefully confusing. What is the point of the T-Doctrine anyway? Why not just stick with the Godhead and forget about introducing some of the confusing points (viz., substance) with the T-Doctrine? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~
Re: [TruthTalk] This Fred Phelps character
Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Northern and Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, etc. have all departed from God. Most well-known preachers (Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.) have departed from God, and disassociated themselves with pure Gospel preaching." Looks to me like this about covers it - He left out the Mormon's LOL Laura
[TruthTalk] Check out Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church: In Their Own Words
Click here: Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church: In Their Own Words
Re: [TruthTalk] This Fred Phelps character
Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church: In Their Own Words Check out this site. This guy doesn't like anyone! Laura
[TruthTalk] This Fred Phelps character
He is the one who carried signs during the Columbine High School Memorial Service, Littleton, CO. saying God hated the fag students who were killed. The police gave him a fenched off area so he would not start a riot. I know this because my wife knew some of the students there. She ministered to them after the tragedy.
[TruthTalk] Fwd: [Fwd: Please pray for my church!!!]]
This is an interesting prayer request. Any comments? Dear Friends, I’m sending this email through my UK email because FTL kicks back my Yahoo email and I wanted each of you to get this today. My church, Immanuel Baptist, here in Lexington will be picketed and protested against THIS Sunday November 24th by Fred Phelps of Topeka, KS. This preacher from Westboro Baptist and his followers have protested at public funerals of homosexuals and hate crime victims, (they carried “GOD HATES FAGS” signs at the funeral of beating victim Matthew Shepard in Casper, WY.) They are protesting the baptism of the quadruplet babies of a homosexual couple at The Cathedral of Christ The King Catholic Church a few weeks back. What this has to with Immanuel Baptist (or the four other churches being picketed that day) is still a mystery. Fred Phelps heavily opposes the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Immanuel Baptist is a member. The Lexington Police Department will have officers on hand to prevent protestors from entering the church during the services. (We are the only church in the area that broadcasts Sunday service live). We are expecting counter protesters from a group calling themselves “Hate Free Lexington”. I’m sure the media will be there as well. WLEX-TV 18 carries our broadcast and I really don’t want my church featured as their “Big Story” on the Sunday night newscast. This is no joke! Pastor Craig Loscalzo issued a statement to the Lexington Herald-Leader last week that “Immanuel does not support homosexuality and believes it to be sinful behavior. We, who are sinners, welcome sinners to come here and find Jesus” Last week’s Sunday bulletin listed the following instructions: We must pack the church with high attendance to show the world “nothing can separate us from the love of Christ” We must ignore the protesters and not attempt to engage them. This group has sued some churches. Come into the House of the Lord and be prepared to worship Him. Jesus said ” Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” (Matthew 5:11) Please pray for my church and for the following churches that will be targeted Sunday: Immanuel Baptist Centenary United Methodist Maxwell Street Presbyterian St. Michael the Archangel Episcopal Church Word of Hope Lutheran Church Cathedral of Christ the King Catholic Personally, I hope it either: snows at least a foot of snow so they have to stand in it, we receive a heavy downpour of rain Sunday morning, or it’s well below 30 degrees. Thanking you in advance for your support! In Christ’s Love, --- Begin Message --- Not sure why I got this Maybe the girl is a prayer partner --- Begin Message --- - Forwarded Message - --- Begin Message --- Angie and Francois use to attend the Maxwell Presbytarian church. --- Begin Message --- This is from a friend of mine and is a very great lady of God. Please lift this prayer concern up on the behalf of the church she supports and other churches in the Lexington area. Thanks for your prayerful support. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:21 --- Begin Message --- Dear Friends, I’m sending this email through my UK email because FTL kicks back my Yahoo email and I wanted each of you to get this today. My church, Immanuel Baptist, here in Lexington will be picketed and protested against THIS Sunday November 24th by Fred Phelps of Topeka, KS. This preacher from Westboro Baptist and his followers have protested at public funerals of homosexuals and hate crime victims, (they carried “GOD HATES FAGS” signs at the funeral of beating victim Matthew Shepard in Casper, WY.) They are protesting the baptism of the quadruplet babies of a homosexual couple at The Cathedral of Christ The King Catholic Church a few weeks back. What this has to with Immanuel Baptist (or the four other churches being picketed that day) is still a mystery. Fred Phelps heavily opposes the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Immanuel Baptist is a member. The Lexington Police Department will have officers on hand to prevent protestors from entering the church during the services. (We are the only church in the area that broadcasts Sunday service live). We are expecting counter protesters from a group calling themselves “Hate Free Lexington”. I’m sure the media will be there as well. WLEX-TV 18 carries our broadcast and I really don’t want my church featured as their “Big Story” on the Sunday night newscast. This is no joke! Pastor Craig Loscalzo issued a statement to the Lexington Herald-Leader last week that “Immanuel does not support homosexuality and believes it to be sinful behavior. We, who are sinners, welcome sinners to come here and find Jesus” Last week’s Sunday bulletin listed the following instructions: We must pack the church with high attendance to show the world “nothing ca
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
You are a smart elick. I am not showering you with blessings. To shower you will blessings, what I say must be false. The Holy Spirit does not lie. You should listen but you will not because your stubbornness is as witchcraft.
You are misusing Matt. 5:11 and John 15 just as you have misused other scriptures.
You quote "JOH 15:21 {But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.}" YOU ARE SAYING I AM NOT SAVED BECAUSE I DO NOT FOLLOW THE OLD TESTAMENT SABBATH. You are misusing this verse.
I REBUKE YOU IN JESUS NAME FOR JUDGING MY ETERNAL SALVATION.
Thank you, Glenn, for showering me with more blessings. MAT 5:11
I am sure that you get along with others much better than I do.
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Thank you, Glenn, for showering me with more blessings.
MAT 5:11
I am sure that you get along with others much better than
I do.
JOH 15:14 {Ye are my friends, if ye do
whatsoever I command you.}.
JOH 15:17 {These things I command you, that ye
love one another.}JOH 15:18 {If the world hate you, ye know that
it hated me before [it hated] you.}JOH 15:19 {If ye were of
the world, the world would love his own: but
because ye
are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
world,
therefore the world hateth you.}JOH 15:20 {Remember the word
that I said unto you, The servant is not
greater
than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also
persecute
you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.}JOH
15:21 {But all these things will they do unto you for my
name's
sake,
because they know not him that sent me.}
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:45
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10
commandments?
Marlin, You have a problem with getting along with people. The
Holy Spirit revealed it to me the first time you posted. You are
stubbord which is as witchcraft according to the Bible. I'm not
saying you are saved. I am saying it sounds like you have fallen from
grace. Gal. 5:4. But I will not make that judgment.
Glen:Truth is no respector of persons.Forget
me. I'm only a worm in God's eyes.What about God?
What does God think?--Marlin
Re: [TruthTalk]Only 9 of the 10 commandments
When people say that they do not want the law, and that they want to do away with the Old Testement, what they really want to do away with is Jesus Christ because He is the Word made flesh. (John 1) --Marlin
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
The Sabbath issue is dead. No one is even asking the question among Christians today. What do you want to talk about? Thanks Marlin. I’ve noticed that TruthTalk is back to it’s Mormon discussions—yawn. It was a lot more fun when we were mixing it up. Linda
RE: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Marlin. Ive noticed that TruthTalk is back to its Mormon discussionsyawn. It was a lot more fun when we were mixing it up. Linda Michael D: Linda??? Is this Izzy? Forgive me if I should know. Anyway, there are a few LDS issues I am interested in clearing up, so I decided to address them. Notice, I am also pursuing other themes... Believe me, I don't think that the LDS-only approach is desirable either. I do encourage you though to respond to some of the questions I have raised with you... i am interested in how you would respond. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of michael douglasSent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:33 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: >[17] And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little >children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. >[18] For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Also, Nephi seems to directly contradict Paul. I Cor 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Clearly, Nephi's claim of all children being the same to God can't be true. What say you? DAVEH: Are you suggesting that Paul was saying that the "unclean" children would be destined for hell, Michael? Michael D: My only point in raising this is that what Nephi says about God, and what Paul says are in great contradiction. Do you agree with that? DAVEH: No, not at all. To understand them in a contradictory way would require one to think that being 'unclean' (as Paul meant here) means an automatic trip to hell. Is that what you believe, Michael? IOW, if one of those unclean children had died, he would be condemned to hell without a chance of Christ redemptive grace.Is that correct? Michael D: Dave H, The question here is that an emphatic statement by Nephi, is contradictory to a clearly stated one by Paul. It would be interesting to get your/the LDS explanation on it. I really would appreciate that. Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.
RE: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
Thanks Marlin. I’ve noticed that TruthTalk is back to it’s Mormon discussions—yawn. It was a lot more fun when we were mixing it up. Linda -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of michael douglas Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: >[17] And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little >children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. >[18] For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Also, Nephi seems to directly contradict Paul. I Cor 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Clearly, Nephi's claim of all children being the same to God can't be true. What say you? DAVEH: Are you suggesting that Paul was saying that the "unclean" children would be destined for hell, Michael? Michael D: My only point in raising this is that what Nephi says about God, and what Paul says are in great contradiction. Do you agree with that? DAVEH: No, not at all. To understand them in a contradictory way would require one to think that being 'unclean' (as Paul meant here) means an automatic trip to hell. Is that what you believe, Michael? IOW, if one of those unclean children had died, he would be condemned to hell without a chance of Christ redemptive grace.Is that correct? Michael D: Dave H, The question here is that an emphatic statement by Nephi, is contradictory to a clearly stated one by Paul. It would be interesting to get your/the LDS explanation on it. I really would appreciate that. Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: >[17] And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little >children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. >[18] For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Also, Nephi seems to directly contradict Paul. I Cor 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Clearly, Nephi's claim of all children being the same to God can't be true. What say you?DAVEH: Are you suggesting that Paul was saying that the "unclean" children would be destined for hell, Michael? Michael D: My only point in raising this is that what Nephi says about God, and what Paul says are in great contradiction. Do you agree with that?DAVEH: No, not at all. To understand them in a contradictory way would require one to think that being 'unclean' (as Paul meant here) means an automatic trip to hell. Is that what you believe, Michael? IOW, if one of those unclean children had died, he would be condemned to hell without a chance of Christ redemptive grace.Is that correct? Michael D: Dave H, The question here is that an emphatic statement by Nephi, is contradictory to a clearly stated one by Paul. It would be interesting to get your/the LDS explanation on it. I really would appreciate that.Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.
Re: ****** SPAM ***** Re: [TruthTalk] I've see a lot of this on TT
I canot discuss what I don't believe. You say you are on TT in order fo find out what Christians believe. Well I believe the Godhead and Trinity are exactly the same thing. That's what I believe. DAVEH: Yes, but I am surprised you would ask that question. (It seems that I have previously said such numerous times.) It seems to me we should be discussing my perceived differences between the Godhead and the T-Doctrine. As an 'outsider' to traditional Catholic and Protestant theology, I have trouble understanding how you believe the T-Doctrine and Godhead are the same when the T-Doctrine seems so purposefully confusing. What is the point of the T-Doctrine anyway? Why not just stick with the Godhead and forget about introducing some of the confusing points (viz., substance) with the T-Doctrine?
Re: ****** SPAM ***** [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
In Mormonism if the Bible or God contradict Mormon doctrine then the Bible and God are wrong. They cover for this by saying the Bible and God are not wrong, but your understanding of God and the Bible are wrong. OF COURSE, MORMONISM IS NEVER WRONG. Michael D: My only point in raising this is that what Nephi says about God, and what Paul says are in great contradiction. Do you agree with that?
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
michael douglas quoted Nephi: > [17] And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; > wherefore, all children are alike unto me; Michael wrote: > Nephi seems to directly contradict Paul. > I Cor 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the > wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: > else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. > Clearly, Nephi's claim of all children being the same to God > can't be true. What say you? DAVEH wrote: > To understand them in a contradictory way would require > one to think that being 'unclean' (as Paul meant here) means > an automatic trip to hell. No, I think you are missing the point. The passage in your Scriptures says that "all children are alike unto me." The passage in 1 Cor. 7:14 indicates that the children of the believers are sanctified by the believers. The implication is that the children of unbelievers are not sanctified but are unclean. Whether you choose to interpret that to mean they are headed to hell or not is another question. The point is that according to the Bible, not all children are alike to God. Therefore, the Bible and the Book of Mormon do not reconcile well on this point about children. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- "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] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Marlin, You have a problem with getting along with people. The Holy Spirit revealed it to me the first time you posted. You are stubbord which is as witchcraft according to the Bible. I'm not saying you are saved. I am saying it sounds like you have fallen from grace. Gal. 5:4. But I will not make that judgment. Glen: Truth is no respector of persons. Forget me. I'm only a worm in God's eyes. What about God? What does God think? --Marlin
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Marlin wrote: > The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc >"Many ministers and theologians have applied the opposite > meaning to Hebrews 4:9. They have completely misinterpreted > the King James Version of this verse, which reads, "There > remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God." > ... ... Hi Marlin. I had huge problems with the logic of this article that you shared. Basically it sought to establish the use of a same Greek word used in the Septuagint to argue that Paul could only mean exactly the same thing as that referred to in the Septuagint. This is crazy. People use words figuratively all the time. Water is sometimes used in the New Testament to refer to the Word of God, and you can't argue that because in the Old Testament it means real water that it must mean real water in the New Testament. Bread likewise is used this way. Leaven is another thing that in the New Testament refers to sin, and also to false doctrine and a false political system. What would you think if I pointed out how the same Greek word is used in the Septuagint to refer to real leaven. Are you really going to think that therefore it must refer to actual leaven everywhere the word is used in the New Testament? Such logic is ludicrous. The article said: > The apostle Paul kept the holy days True. The article said: > and commanded Gentile converts to keep them (I Cor. 5:7-8). False. This passage in 1 Cor. 5 is exactly one of those passages where Paul sees clearly and expresses to the believers how that Christ has become our passover sacrifice, so now we are in the days of unleavened bread and we should put away the leaven. He is not talking about literal leaven that is put out during the days of unleavened bread anymore than he is talking about the literal passover lamb that was killed and eaten at passover. He is talking about how when believers become saved in Jesus Christ, they immediately put away from themselves the leaven of sin from their lives, just as the shadow of the feasts depict. Notice how this passage says, "not with old leaven" and "with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." He spells it out clearly for everyone that the unleavened bread he speaks of is not something you put in your mouth and eat. Rather, he is speaking about the sincerity and truth that we need to walk in when we believe upon Jesus Christ and eat him as our passover lamb (spiritually speaking, not literally). I think observing passover and the feast of unleavened bread is wonderful. Paul, being a Jew, kept these feasts and taught their application to the believer. I have been in Israel during Passover and the feast of unleavened bread, and the imagery is fantastic when you have all these hotel owners and restaurant owners washing all their things outside, getting rid of every bit of leaven. People meticulously vacuum their cars to make sure every bit of leaven is gone. When a person understands how this leaven represents sin, to see all the industry given to making sure the leaven is all gone, how clear it becomes that we must put away every speck of sin that might be residing somewhere in our lives. I have Jewish friends who are not Christian. During Passover and the feast I was visiting one of these friends in Israel. I asked him if he knew why the Scriptures told them to get rid of the leaven. Did he know why they were doing all this. He said no, only that the Torah says to do it. You should have seen his eyes widen when I explained how our Christian perspective is that the leaven represents sin, and therefore, when we come to Christ who is the true passover lamb, we must immediately put forth all the leaven (sin) in our lives and enter into his rest. He has lived in this culture his whole life and never heard that. In my culture, people don't understand what it takes to get rid of all the leaven in the household. Bringing these cultures together is wonderful I think. The article said: > Paul carries his instruction even further, showing that > we have to keep the Sabbath or lose salvation. > "For he that is entered into His rest [keeping the Sabbath], > He also has ceased from his own works, as God did > from His [when He created the Sabbath day]" Do you believe this Marlin, that if we don't literally observe Saturday that we will lose salvation? Do you not recognize that the author of Hebrews was talking about a rest other than Saturday observance? Surely you are not blind to this spiritual insight. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA -- "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] Fwd: Fw: It finally happened!!!
Our ex-member Blainer, sent this to a few of us privately. Does any have any comment? DAVEH: Yes.I guess this is what happens when you (Glenn) admit "You might right." about something I said! :-) It Finally happened! -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~
Re: ****** SPAM ***** Re: [TruthTalk] I've see a lot of this on TT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's no need to confuse you with the truth. I told you I believed the Godhead and Trinity are the same thing and you just blew me away. DAVEH: I don't think so, Brother Glenn. I explained how the T-Doctrine differs as I understand it from the Godhead in the area of "substance". Several times I've asked you to clear that issue up by explaining how the "substance" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same, but I do not recall you answering. Now I wonder why you are avoiding discussing "substance". I took it as words to the effect that I couldn't believe that way. BUT I DO! :-) Your mind is made up. Do you believe in the Godhead? DAVEH: Yes, but I am surprised you would ask that question. (It seems that I have previously said such numerous times.) It seems to me we should be discussing my perceived differences between the Godhead and the T-Doctrine. As an 'outsider' to traditional Catholic and Protestant theology, I have trouble understanding how you believe the T-Doctrine and Godhead are the same when the T-Doctrine seems so purposefully confusing. What is the point of the T-Doctrine anyway? Why not just stick with the Godhead and forget about introducing some of the confusing points (viz., substance) with the T-Doctrine? DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?!? Then would you mind explaining it so that I won't be confused! Right now I am having trouble understanding the 'substance' part of it.please explain what you think it means. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you cannot convince them...confuse them. -- Harry S. Truman DAVEH: I suspect he said that right after reading the Trinity Doctrine.. :-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: >[17] And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little >children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. >[18] For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Also, Nephi seems to directly contradict Paul. I Cor 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Clearly, Nephi's claim of all children being the same to God can't be true. What say you? DAVEH: Are you suggesting that Paul was saying that the "unclean" children would be destined for hell, Michael? Michael D: My only point in raising this is that what Nephi says about God, and what Paul says are in great contradiction. Do you agree with that? DAVEH: No, not at all. To understand them in a contradictory way would require one to think that being 'unclean' (as Paul meant here) means an automatic trip to hell. Is that what you believe, Michael? IOW, if one of those unclean children had died, he would be condemned to hell without a chance of Christ redemptive grace.Is that correct? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~
Re: ****** SPAM ***** Re: ****** SPAM ***** [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
michael douglas wrote: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael D: On this one I wil try and find it for you. Are you suggesting though, that LDs teaching says that people are going to be in hell forever? DAVEH: Yes. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~
Re: ****** SPAM ***** [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael D: On this one I wil try and find it for you. Are you suggesting though, that LDs teaching says that people are going to be in hell forever? michael douglas wrote: >[13] Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. > Michael D: Dave H:, how does this statement fit with the LDSers teaching on TT that everyone will get out of hell eventually? Any explanation?DAVEH: I'm lost on this one, Michael. When/where did you hear that we believe "everyone will get out of hell eventually"??? That is not my understanding, nor have I heard LDS theology teach such. I suspect you misunderstood something one of us said at one time. Do you recall what was said when you heard this? >[21] Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Again, is this the same God who will leave no one in hell forever? There seems to be serious inconsistency here.DAVEH: I think there is a misunderstanding on your part of LDS beliefs regarding hell. -- Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.
Re: ****** SPAM ***** [TruthTalk] Question for Dave H
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: >[17] And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little >children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. >[18] For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Also, Nephi seems to directly contradict Paul. I Cor 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. Clearly, Nephi's claim of all children being the same to God can't be true. What say you? DAVEH: Are you suggesting that Paul was saying that the "unclean" children would be destined for hell, Michael? Michael D: My only point in raising this is that what Nephi says about God, and what Paul says are in great contradiction. Do you agree with that? Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Do they not rread in Colossians 2, [? Who is not reading?]where Paul says let no man judge you conc3erning keeping the sabbath(s), which were only [? also the substance of Christ. Read the Greek] a shadow of things to come, but not the true, but the body is of christ? Where do these folks get off contradicting the Gospel of Christ and putting people in bondage [? not so. His laws are not grevious, and are not a bondage as was Egypt, but the liberty from bondage. Read Exo. 20. ]that Christ paid to free us from? That is deep deception. [? not so. The deception is the preaching of iniquity and lawlessness in this present age, and thinking to change times that God set as a sign of his people.] The fact that Paul said that the sabbaths are a shadow, and not the real, is the basis of the NT teaching that the sabbath was a type of our rest in Christ, through faith. For these folks to condemn that is to deny the salvation that is in Christ alone[? not so. Quite the contrary.], and to nullify [? not so. Quite the contrary.] His work on the cross for us. [? He is working still.] Now, why would any one want the shadow and not the real, I don't know. Precisely. --Marlin Marlin Halverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "...because the commandment of Sabbath in the NT is our rest in Jesus as I previously mentioned re Hebrews 4." The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc --Marlin "Many ministers and theologians have applied the opposite meaning to Hebrews 4:9. They have completely misinterpreted the King James Version of this verse, which reads, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. They teach that Christians are no longer required to observe the Sabbath because Jesus Christ has given them rest by releasing them from commandment keeping and thereby He fulfilled the law for them. As a result, they are told that he or she has entered into a spiritual rest from sin and does not have to keep the commandments of God. Such reasoning is completely false??? Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish or do away with the laws and commandments of God, but to fulfill them. Did you read I Tim 1, that I shared in a previous post? It says that there are people who want to use the law, but miss it altogether. Paul said that the law is good if a man use it lawfully. It was not made for a righteous man but for sinners. Did you consider that at all? Neither did Jesus Christ fulfill any commandment for anyone in order to release him or her from the obligation to keep them. He set the example for usnot to force us but to free us from committing sin (I Pet. 2:21-22, I John 3:4). Right, by walking in the spirit. When we understand the meaning of the Greek text, there is no question that the New Testament upholds the authority of the Fourth Commandment for Christians today. The Greek word that is used in Hebrews 4:9, sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, which means Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Of course! These folks just refuse to see that God's sabbath is not a day, but a relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. I challenge you Marlin to read this passage yourself, then come back if the context does not show that the seventh day rest that God undertook, is not now accomplished by faith in Christ. (Again, please relate your answer in the context of the passage which these folks are using to refute the transition from the day, to the relationship with Jesus). This definition of the Greek word sabbatismoV sabbatismos is confirmed by other historical works: The words sabbath rest is translated from the GK noun sabbatismos, [and is] a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch (Super set. 3 [Moralia 166a]) for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Heb. 4:9 (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, p. 856). The Greek word, sabbatismoV sabbatismos, is a noun. The verb form of the word is sabbatizw sabbatizo, which means to keep the Sabbath (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This definition of sabbatizw Sabbatizo is confirmed by its use in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from third century BC. It is called the Septuagint, meaning Seventy because the first five books were translated by seventy scholars who were Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. Jews used the Septuagint in synagogues throughout the Roman empire, and by the Greek-speaki
Re: [TruthTalk] Godhead/Trinity
In a message dated 11/22/2002 8:12:45 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Click here: New Testament Greek - SearchGodsWord.org OK This works for me. How can anyone deny this? Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Michael D: Marlin, usually, I will not read a commentary presented in answer to my comments in these discussions, because I am not interested in what any authority's position is per se, but in what I see in the scriptures. For instance, to say that Christians have to keep the sabbath, and not only that, but all of the sabbaths, leads me to wonder at the level of deception these people are existing in. (I do not say that to be unkind, but out of deep concern). Do they not read in Colossians 2, where Paul says let no man judge you concerning keeping the sabbath(s), which were only a shadow of things to come, but not the true, but the body is of Christ? Where do these folks get off contradicting the Gospel of Christ and putting people in bondage that Christ paid to free us from? That is deep deception. The fact that Paul said that the sabbaths are a shadow, and not the real, is the basis of the NT teaching that the sabbath was a type of our rest in Christ, through faith and emphatically spelled out in Heb. 4. For these folks to condemn that is to deny the salvation that is in Christ alone, and to nullify His work on the cross for us. Now, why would any one want to hang on to the shadow and not accept the real, I don't know. Marlin Halverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "...because the commandment of Sabbath in the NT is our rest in Jesus as I previously mentioned re Hebrews 4." The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc --Marlin "Many ministers and theologians have applied the opposite meaning to Hebrews 4:9. They have completely misinterpreted the King James Version of this verse, which reads, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. They teach that Christians are no longer required to observe the Sabbath because Jesus Christ has given them rest by releasing them from commandment keeping and thereby He fulfilled the law for them. As a result, they are told that he or she has entered into a spiritual rest from sin and does not have to keep the commandments of God. Such reasoning is completely false??? Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish or do away with the laws and commandments of God, but to fulfill them. Did you read I Tim 1, that I shared in a previous post? It says that there are people who want to use the law, but miss it altogether. Paul said that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully. It was not made for a righteous man but for sinners. This is hard for Sabbath keepers to accept, but they must look it square in the face. The law is for the ungodly and sinners!!! Did you consider that at all? Those who obtain righteousness in Christ are not under the law! Neither did Jesus Christ fulfill any commandment for anyone in order to release him or her from the obligation to keep them. He set the exam ple for usnot to force us but to free us from committing sin (I Pet. 2:21-22, I John 3:4). Right, by walking in the spirit. When we understand the meaning of the Greek text, there is no question that the New Testament upholds the authority of the Fourth Commandment for Christians today. The Greek word that is used in Hebrews 4:9, sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, which means Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Of course! These folks just refuse to see that God's sabbath is not a day, but a relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. I challenge you Marlin to read this passage yourself, then come back an let me know if the context does not show that the seventh day rest that God undertook, is not now accomplished by faith in Christ. (Again, please relate your answer in the context of the passage which these folks are using to refute the transition from the day, to the relationship with Jesus). Now, I have no problem with the definition of the word, I am just saying that the passage says that that sabbath is now accomplished by faith, which the passage says, does it not? This definition of the Greek word sabbatismoV sabbatismos is confirmed by other historical works: The words sabbath rest is translated from the GK noun sabbatismos, [and is] a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch (Super set. 3 [Moralia 166a]) for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Heb. 4:9 (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, p. 856). The Greek word, sabbatismoV sabbatismos, is a noun. The verb form of the word is sabbatizw sabbatizo, which means to keep the Sabbath (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This definition of sabbatizw Sabbatizo is confirmed by its use in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from third century BC. It is called the Septuagint, meaning Seventy because the first five books were translated by seventy scholars who were Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. Jews used the Septuagint in
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Michael D: Marlin, usually, I will not read someone's commentary presented in answer to my comments in these discussions, because I am not interested in what any authority's position is per se, but in what I see in the scriptures. For instance, to say that Christians have to keep the sabbath, and not only that, but all of the sabbaths, leads me to wonder at the level of deception these people are existing in. (I do not say that to be unkind, but out of deep concern). Do they not read in Colossians 2, where Paul says let no man judge you concerning keeping the sabbath(s), which were only a shadow of things to come, but not the true, but the body is of Christ? Where do these folks get off contradicting the Gospel of Christ and putting people in bondage that Christ paid to free us from? That is deep deception. The fact that Paul said that the sabbaths are a shadow, and not the real, is the basis of the NT teaching that the sabbath was a type of our rest in Christ, through faith and emphatically spelled out in Heb. 4. For these folks to condemn that is to deny the salvation that is in Christ alone, and to nullify His work on the cross for us. Now, why would any one want to hang on to the shadow and not accept the real, I don't know. Marlin Halverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "...because the commandment of Sabbath in the NT is our rest in Jesus as I previously mentioned re Hebrews 4." The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc --Marlin "Many ministers and theologians have applied the opposite meaning to Hebrews 4:9. They have completely misinterpreted the King James Version of this verse, which reads, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. They teach that Christians are no longer required to observe the Sabbath because Jesus Christ has given them rest by releasing them from commandment keeping and thereby He fulfilled the law for them. As a result, they are told that he or she has entered into a spiritual rest from sin and does not have to keep the commandments of God. Such reasoning is completely false??? Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish or do away with the laws and commandments of God, but to fulfill them. Did you read I Tim 1, that I shared in a previous post? It says that there are people who want to use the law, but miss it altogether. Paul said that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully. It was not made for a righteous man but for sinners. This is hard for Sabbath keepers to accept, but they must look it square in the face. The law is for the ungodly and sinners!!! Did you consider that at all? Those who obtain righteousness in Christ are not under the law! Neither did Jesus Christ fulfill any commandment for anyone in order to release him or her from the obligation to keep them. He set the exam ple for usnot to force us but to free us from committing sin (I Pet. 2:21-22, I John 3:4). Right, by walking in the spirit. When we understand the meaning of the Greek text, there is no question that the New Testament upholds the authority of the Fourth Commandment for Christians today. The Greek word that is used in Hebrews 4:9, sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, which means Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Of course! These folks just refuse to see that God's sabbath is not a day, but a relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. I challenge you Marlin to read this passage yourself, then come back an let me know if the context does not show that the seventh day rest that God undertook, is not now accomplished by faith in Christ. (Again, please relate your answer in the context of the passage which these folks are using to refute the transition from the day, to the relationship with Jesus). Now, I have no problem with the definition of the word, I am just saying that the passage says that that sabbath is now accomplished by faith, which the passage says, does it not? This definition of the Greek word sabbatismoV sabbatismos is confirmed by other historical works: The words sabbath rest is translated from the GK noun sabbatismos, [and is] a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch (Super set. 3 [Moralia 166a]) for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Heb. 4:9 (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, p. 856). The Greek word, sabbatismoV sabbatismos, is a noun. The verb form of the word is sabbatizw sabbatizo, which means to keep the Sabbath (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This definition of sabbatizw Sabbatizo is confirmed by its use in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from third century BC. It is called the Septuagint, meaning Seventy because the first five books were translated by seventy scholars who were Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. Jews used the Septua
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Glen: Truth is no respector of persons.Forget me. I'm only a worm in God's eyes. What about God? What does God think? --Marlin - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments? The reason I think this is wrong is because Marlin ..
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Michael D: Marlin, usually, I will not read someone's commentary presented in answer to my comments in these discussions, because I am not interested in what any authority's position is per se, but in what I see in the scriptures. For instance, to say that Christians have to keep the sabbath, and not only that, but all of the sabbaths, leads me to wonder at the level of deception these people are existing in. (I do not say that to be unkind, but out of deep concern). Do they not read in Colossians 2, where Paul says let no man judge you concerning keeping the sabbath(s), which were only a shadow of things to come, but not the true, but the body is of Christ? Where do these folks get off contradicting the Gospel of Christ and putting people in bondage that Christ paid to free us from? That is deep deception. The fact that Paul said that the sabbaths are a shadow, and not the real, is the basis of the NT teaching that the sabbath was a type of our rest in Christ, through faith and emphatically spelled out in Heb. 4. For these folks to condemn that is to deny the salvation that is in Christ alone, and to nullify His work on the cross for us. Now, why would any one want to hang on to the shadow and not accept the real, I don't know. Marlin Halverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "...because the commandment of Sabbath in the NT is our rest in Jesus as I previously mentioned re Hebrews 4." The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc --Marlin "Many ministers and theologians have applied the opposite meaning to Hebrews 4:9. They have completely misinterpreted the King James Version of this verse, which reads, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. They teach that Christians are no longer required to observe the Sabbath because Jesus Christ has given them rest by releasing them from commandment keeping and thereby He fulfilled the law for them. As a result, they are told that he or she has entered into a spiritual rest from sin and does not have to keep the commandments of God. Such reasoning is completely false??? Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish or do away with the laws and commandments of God, but to fulfill them. Did you read I Tim 1, that I shared in a previous post? It says that there are people who want to use the law, but miss it altogether. Paul said that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully. It was not made for a righteous man but for sinners. This is hard for Sabbath keepers to accept, but they must look it square in the face. The law is for the ungodly and sinners!!! Did you consider that at all? Those who obtain righteousness in Christ are not under the law! Neither did Jesus Christ fulfill any commandment for anyone in order to release him or her from the obligation to keep them. He set the exam ple for usnot to force us but to free us from committing sin (I Pet. 2:21-22, I John 3:4). Right, by walking in the spirit. When we understand the meaning of the Greek text, there is no question that the New Testament upholds the authority of the Fourth Commandment for Christians today. The Greek word that is used in Hebrews 4:9, sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, which means Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Of course! These folks just refuse to see that God's sabbath is not a day, but a relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. I challenge you Marlin to read this passage yourself, then come back if the context does not show that the seventh day rest that God undertook, is not now accomplished by faith in Christ. (Again, please relate your answer in the context of the passage which these folks are using to refute the transition from the day, to the relationship with Jesus). This definition of the Greek word sabbatismoV sabbatismos is confirmed by other historical works: The words sabbath rest is translated from the GK noun sabbatismos, [and is] a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch (Super set. 3 [Moralia 166a]) for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Heb. 4:9 (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, p. 856). The Greek word, sabbatismoV sabbatismos, is a noun. The verb form of the word is sabbatizw sabbatizo, which means to keep the Sabbath (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This definition of sabbatizw Sabbatizo is confirmed by its use in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from third century BC. It is called the Septuagint, meaning Seventy because the first five books were translated by seventy scholars who were Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. Jews used the Septuagint in synagogues throughout the Roman empire, and by the Greek-speaking Jewish and Gentile coverts in the early New Testament church. The apostle Paul, quotes extensively from the Septuagint i
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Michael D: Marlin, usually, I will not read someone's commentary presented in answer to my comments in these discussions, because I am not interested in what any authority's position is per se, but in what I see in the scriptures. For instance, to say that Christians have to keep the sabbath, and not only that, but all of the sabbaths, leads me to wonder at the level of deception these people are existing in. (I do not say that to be unkind, but out of deep concern). Do they not read in Colossians 2, where Paul says let no man judge you concerning keeping the sabbath(s), which were only a shadow of things to come, but not the true, but the body is of Christ? Where do these folks get off contradicting the Gospel of Christ and putting people in bondage that Christ paid to free us from? That is deep deception. The fact that Paul said that the sabbaths are a shadow, and not the real, is the basis of the NT teaching that the sabbath was a type of our rest in Christ, through faith and emphatically spelled out in Heb. 4. For these folks to condemn that is to deny the salvation that is in Christ alone, and to nullify His work on the cross for us. Now, why would any one want to hang on to the shadow and not accept the real, I don't know. Marlin Halverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "...because the commandment of Sabbath in the NT is our rest in Jesus as I previously mentioned re Hebrews 4." The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc --Marlin "Many ministers and theologians have applied the opposite meaning to Hebrews 4:9. They have completely misinterpreted the King James Version of this verse, which reads, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. They teach that Christians are no longer required to observe the Sabbath because Jesus Christ has given them rest by releasing them from commandment keeping and thereby He fulfilled the law for them. As a result, they are told that he or she has entered into a spiritual rest from sin and does not have to keep the commandments of God. Such reasoning is completely false??? Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish or do away with the laws and commandments of God, but to fulfill them. Did you read I Tim 1, that I shared in a previous post? It says that there are people who want to use the law, but miss it altogether. Paul said that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully. It was not made for a righteous man but for sinners. This is hard for Sabbath keepers to accept, but they must look it square in the face. The law is for the ungodly and sinners!!! Did you consider that at all? Those who obtain righteousness in Christ are not under the law! Neither did Jesus Christ fulfill any commandment for anyone in order to release him or her from the obligation to keep them. He set the exam ple for usnot to force us but to free us from committing sin (I Pet. 2:21-22, I John 3:4). Right, by walking in the spirit. When we understand the meaning of the Greek text, there is no question that the New Testament upholds the authority of the Fourth Commandment for Christians today. The Greek word that is used in Hebrews 4:9, sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, which means Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Of course! These folks just refuse to see that God's sabbath is not a day, but a relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. I challenge you Marlin to read this passage yourself, then come back if the context does not show that the seventh day rest that God undertook, is not now accomplished by faith in Christ. (Again, please relate your answer in the context of the passage which these folks are using to refute the transition from the day, to the relationship with Jesus). This definition of the Greek word sabbatismoV sabbatismos is confirmed by other historical works: The words sabbath rest is translated from the GK noun sabbatismos, [and is] a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch (Super set. 3 [Moralia 166a]) for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Heb. 4:9 (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, p. 856). The Greek word, sabbatismoV sabbatismos, is a noun. The verb form of the word is sabbatizw sabbatizo, which means to keep the Sabbath (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This definition of sabbatizw Sabbatizo is confirmed by its use in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from third century BC. It is called the Septuagint, meaning Seventy because the first five books were translated by seventy scholars who were Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. Jews used the Septuagint in synagogues throughout the Roman empire, and by the Greek-speaking Jewish and Gentile coverts in the early New Testament church. The apostle Paul, quotes extensively from the Septuagint i
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
Michael D: Marlin, usually, I will not read someone's commentary presented in answer to my comments in these discussions, because I am not interested in what any authority's position, but on what I see in the scriptures. For instance, to say that Chrisrians have to keep the sabbath, and not only that, but all of the sabbaths, leads me to wonder at the level of deception these people are existing. (I do not say that to be unkind, but out of deep concern). Do they not rread in Colossians 2, where Paul says let no man judge you conc3erning keeping the sabbath(s), which were only a shadow of things to come, but not the true, but the body is of christ? Where do these folks get off contradicting the Gospel of Christ and putting people in bondage that Christ paid to free us from? That is deep deception. The fact that Paul said that the sabbaths are a shadow, and not the real, is the basis of the NT teaching that the sabbath was a type of our rest in Christ, through faith. For these folks to condemn that is to deny the salvation that is in Christ alone, and to nullify His work on the cross for us. Now, why would any one want the shadow and not the real, I don't know. Marlin Halverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "...because the commandment of Sabbath in the NT is our rest in Jesus as I previously mentioned re Hebrews 4." The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc --Marlin "Many ministers and theologians have applied the opposite meaning to Hebrews 4:9. They have completely misinterpreted the King James Version of this verse, which reads, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. They teach that Christians are no longer required to observe the Sabbath because Jesus Christ has given them rest by releasing them from commandment keeping and thereby He fulfilled the law for them. As a result, they are told that he or she has entered into a spiritual rest from sin and does not have to keep the commandments of God. Such reasoning is completely false??? Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish or do away with the laws and commandments of God, but to fulfill them. Did you read I Tim 1, that I shared in a previous post? It says that there are people who want to use the law, but miss it altogether. Paul said that the law is good if a man use it lawfully. It was not made for a righteous man but for sinners. Did you consider that at all? Neither did Jesus Christ fulfill any commandment for anyone in order to release him or her from the obligation to keep them. He set the example for usnot to force us but to free us from committing sin (I Pet. 2:21-22, I John 3:4). Right, by walking in the spirit. When we understand the meaning of the Greek text, there is no question that the New Testament upholds the authority of the Fourth Commandment for Christians today. The Greek word that is used in Hebrews 4:9, sabbatismoV, pronounced sabbatismos, which means Sabbath rest, Sabbath observance (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Of course! These folks just refuse to see that God's sabbath is not a day, but a relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. I challenge you Marlin to read this passage yourself, then come back if the context does not show that the seventh day rest that God undertook, is not now accomplished by faith in Christ. (Again, please relate your answer in the context of the passage which these folks are using to refute the transition from the day, to the relationship with Jesus). This definition of the Greek word sabbatismoV sabbatismos is confirmed by other historical works: The words sabbath rest is translated from the GK noun sabbatismos, [and is] a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch (Super set. 3 [Moralia 166a]) for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings which are not dependent on Heb. 4:9 (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, p. 856). The Greek word, sabbatismoV sabbatismos, is a noun. The verb form of the word is sabbatizw sabbatizo, which means to keep the Sabbath (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This definition of sabbatizw Sabbatizo is confirmed by its use in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from third century BC. It is called the Septuagint, meaning Seventy because the first five books were translated by seventy scholars who were Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. Jews used the Septuagint in synagogues throughout the Roman empire, and by the Greek-speaking Jewish and Gentile coverts in the early New Testament church. The apostle Paul, quotes extensively from the Septuagint in his epistle to the Hebrews. When Paul used the Greek word sabbatismoV sabbatismos in Hebrews 4:9, he knew that the meaning of this word was well known to the Greek-speaking believers of that day. The verb form sabbatizw, sabbatizo was used in the Septuagint which was as familiar t
Re: [TruthTalk] I've see a lot of this on TT
There's no need to confuse you with the truth. I told you I believed the Godhead and Trinity are the same thing and you just blew me away. I took it as words to the effect that I couldn't believe that way. BUT I DO! :-) Your mind is made up. Do you believe in the Godhead? DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?!? Then would you mind explaining it so that I won't be confused! Right now I am having trouble understanding the 'substance' part of it.please explain what you think it means. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you cannot convince them...confuse them. -- Harry S. Truman DAVEH: I suspect he said that right after reading the Trinity Doctrine.. :-)
[TruthTalk] Godhead/Trinity
Click here: New Testament Greek - SearchGodsWord.org
Re: [TruthTalk] Only 9 of the 10 commandments?
The reason I think this is wrong is because Marlin does not keep the Old Testament Sabbath just as they did in the OT. Marlin, I do NOT, will not, have not, kept the OT Sabbath. You need to stone me to death if you are going to follow the OT. Marlin, you do not follow the Old Testament Sabbath. Therefore you condemn yourself in this matter. FURTHERMORE, I HAVE BEEN KNOW TO PUT UP A CHRISTMAS TREE WITH OVER 2000 LIGHTS ON IT THE SABBATH AFTER THANKSGIVING. WITH AN ATTITUDE LIKE MINE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THE OLD TESTAMENT YOU MUST STONE ME TO DEATH. "...because the commandment of Sabbath in the NT is our rest in Jesus as I previously mentioned re Hebrews 4." The following is from: http://www.cbcg.org/true_sabbath.doc --Marlin
