Re: [TruthTalk] [TruthTalk Digest]
Charles Perry Locke wrote: >Blain wrote:: >...Does that answer your question, Laura? Now let me ask you a >couple...IF Adam had not transgressed, he would have been immortal. >I assume you agree with that? Then, do you believe immortal men and >women can have children? Now let me take it a step further..suppose >Eve had partaken of the FF and had fallen, but Adam had not transgressed >and remained immortal. Do you think Adam (being in a higher state of >immortality) could have had children with Eve (in a lower state of >mortality)? If I may interject, neither Adam nor Eve were physically immortal to start with. DAVEH: ??? Really? Is that commonly believed by most Protestants, Perry? The death that God was talking about was spiritual death! DAVEH: When God said to Adam thou shalt surely die if he partook of the FF, you believe he was not speaking about physical death? I just want to make sure I am understanding you on this, Perry. So..if AE had partaken of the fruit of the tree of life instead of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil..then would they have lived on into mortality? May I assume you believe the tree of life's benefit is directed to physical life as contrasted to spiritual life? Recall that they were bannished from the garden so they would not partake of the tree of life and, thus, live forever in a fallen and unredeemable state. Kicking them out of the garden was an act of mercy, to remove them from the presence of the tree of life, thus allowing them to be remain redeemable. Gen 3:22b-24 ...and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever; 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
RE: [TruthTalk] Adam's Transgression
David Miller wrote: How does God know about right and wrong? DAVEH wrote: If I were to ask that question of you, would you not say that is the definition/nature of God? Not exactly. Calvinists would tend to answer this way, but I do not believe that right and wrong is defined by God per se, meaning, I do not believe something is right just because God says it is right. I believe that God is always right because his knowledge is complete enough to know the difference in every situation. I believe that the definition of right and wrong exists outside of any reference to God. DaveH wrote: If God does not know the difference between right and wrong, he wouldn't be in a position to create our existence. Ok. I think I agree with this. DaveH wrote: I believe AE would have seen transgression in the pre-mortal existence when Lucifer fought against the Lord. Their knowledge of such was clouded when they were placed in the garden of eden. This sounds like a problem with the doctrine of pre-mortal existence. It seems to me that Adam and Eve truly were innocent and lacked this knowledge, having been created in that state. Once they transgressed, sin entered the world and their progeny would not be born in this state of innocence. DAVEH wrote: I don't believe they knew/understood the difference until AFTER they partook of the fruit. I would be surprised if Reformed theology teaches they knew the difference BEFORE. The general wisdom is that they did not know the difference until afterward. This is an assumption I have held that I have never questioned before. Right now I'm just trying to explore all possibilities and see how your views of how a being comes to know good and evil fits in with everything else. You believe that Adam Eve could not know right and wrong without transgressing, and therefore you reason that they did not sin when they partook of the fruit because they did not know right from wrong. I immediately wonder about God and how he knows the difference between right and wrong. It seems like according to your viewpoint, he too would have to transgress in order to know good and evil. However, now I see that you put God in a different category altogether. God has always known right and wrong by definition, but Adam Eve had to transgress before they could know such. Have I got that right? I'm not sure I agree with your perspective here, but I want to make sure I am hearing you correctly. David Miller wrote: I'm still having trouble following your idea that transgression and sin is not the same. DAVEH wrote: Let's start with Adam's transgression. Is it ever referred to as Adam's sin in the Bible? If not, why not? Doesn't that seem a little peculiar? I believe that the Bible DOES refer to Adam's transgression as sin. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not SINNED in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Rom 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through THE ONE WHO SINNED; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. (NASB) DaveH wrote: Let me ask you, DavidM...do you believe Eve could have had children IF Adam had not partaken of the FF (Forbidden Fruit) after Eve had done so? Yes. DaveH wrote: I do not believe it would have been possible. (Furthermore..LDS theology teaches they could not have had children prior to the fall anyway.) Why not? Care to share some references for my personal study? DaveH wrote: Second, have you ever wondered why it is Adam's transgression, and not Eve's transgression? Sure. That is easily understood when we understand authority. DaveH wrote: Was not Eve the first to partake of the forbidden fruit? If so, why would the transgression not be attributed to Eve instead of Adam? Because Adam was in authority over Eve. President Bush is said to have invaded Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein, but I don't think Bush himself ever did that. Others did it under his authority. DaveH wrote: As I suggested above, Adam may not have had much choice... I believe he did have a choice, but I do agree that his reasons for doing so were different than Eve's. Eve was deceived but Adam was not. Adam partook because of the woman, but Eve partook because of the Serpent. DaveH wrote: ... from a logical standpoint I don't think one can conclusively say that all such transgressions are sinful. As I intimated previously, a young child may transgress a law, but IMO that hardly means he sinned. I assume you would disagree with that,
RE: [TruthTalk] arophobia: fear of reason
Dean wrote: If this is true-Where does this place Jesus when he called them hypocrites-foxes-blind leading the blind? Jesus's style of argumentation was not one whereby he resorted to ad hominem attacks. Most of the recorded teachings of Jesus are void of any kind of name calling. In those few cases where he did employ it, they were not the result of his lack of arguments. Rather, he mixed in much explanation and forceful arguments for why he was applying the label. For example, read Matthew 23 where Jesus does a lot of name calling. He does not just get frustrated with his opponents and yell, HYPOCRITE! BLIND MAN! Rather, he cites many examples of how they practice their hypocrisy. On TruthTalk, while we do not allow ad hominem attacks, we do afford enough latitude such that you can use labels. For example, you can say, I believe you are deceived David because you say ... If your label is couched with information that can be responded to, that will be ok. Nevertheless, I would warn that it is a slippery slope to use labels in this way. People too often get lazy and rely on the labels rather than the arguments when they go down this path. Use labels sparingly and deliberately. If you find that the label you use causes the person you are addressing to withdraw from discussion, or it causes them to change the subject to defending themselves rather than defending their idea of truth, then you need to back off of the labels and apply yourself to discussing the concepts involved. The goal of this list is to discuss truth with people who have different systems of knowledge, not for people to fight and malign one another. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] [TruthTalk Digest]
Perry wrote: If I may interject, neither Adam nor Eve were physically immortal to start with. I'm VERY surprised to hear this response. Why do you believe that they were created as mortal beings who would die? Perry wrote: The death that God was talking about was spiritual death! Does not spiritual life result in physical life, and spiritual death result in physical death? The literal reading of Genesis 2:17 is as follows: Green's Literal Translation: but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die. (Genesis 2:17 LITV) Young's Literal Translation: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.' (Genesis 2:17 YLT) The dying thou dost die phrase is called among the Rabbi's a doubled death. They interpret it to refer to both spiritual and physical death. This makes a lot of sense to me. Perry wrote: Recall that they were bannished from the garden so they would not partake of the tree of life and, thus, live forever in a fallen and unredeemable state. Kicking them out of the garden was an act of mercy, to remove them from the presence of the tree of life, thus allowing them to be remain redeemable. I don't understand. Why would living forever make them unredeemable? It seems to me that the problem of them living forever is not that they would be unredeemable, but rather that their progeny being born in a sinful state would have problems created by the longevity of their ancestors. This is perhaps partly why the lifespan of man was continually shortened as the iniquity of men increased. Modern man's lifespan is one-tenth of those who lived in Adam's generation. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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.
[TruthTalk] arophobia: fear of reason
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine, Hi Judy, Well, the point was that they could not reason against him--they might have tried rationalizing, or in other words, making excuses for themselves. But apparently they were so used to being in charge, they expected compliance with their dictates and their traditions to be automatic. Of course, they were envious!! And remember, charity envieth not! They had no love in their hearts for him, so they sought to kill him, and finally succeeded. Judy: They had no love for anyone, including God, they served themselves with an outward religious veneer and Jesuslayed down his life. Noone was successfulat killing him, he was led by the Spirit of God as a lamb to the slaughter. Blaine: They had tried before, but failed, and would have failed again if it had not been for the betrayal of Judas Iscariot--the unrepentant thief, the man who carried the money bag, wholet his greed overpower his testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, something he knew to be true. Judy: Judas' duplicityfinally caught up with him for Satan had entered into him prior tothat kiss of betrayal; I don't know whether Judas had a revelation of Jesus as Messiah (like Peter - which must come from heaven) I doubt itbut he did know (after the fact) that he had killed innocent blood because he said so.EvenSatan who indwelled Judas had no victoryin his death, burial, and resurrectionbecause it is written "None of the rulers of this age understood God's wisdom because if they hadunderstood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8) Blaine: Do you suppose these men who paid Judas 30 peices of silver (the price of a slave) were aware, along with Judas, that this was the Messiah they were doing away with? There is evidence they were. Judy: Where is this evidence? I just showedfrom 1 Corinthians above that neither Satan nor the people he used in executing his supposed plan knew what they were about. Judy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Blaine: There is no reason against the Truth and the people knew Jesus spoke as one having authority and not like the scribes (Mark 1:22 and Matthew 7:29). It was not for "arophobia" that the Jewish leadershad him killed, it was for envy (that green eyed monster);this is what the scripture teaches. Pilate the Roman Governor wasthe one with civil authority and he was aware of this(see Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10) Judy From: "Blaine Borrowman" Blaine: The Jews were free to use reason to counter his statements, but chose instead to use their authority and influence to have him killed. This was an extreme form of arophobia, I would say.
[TruthTalk] deceived
From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me throw y'all something to ponder. I'm tired of scratching my head alone. Consider this: Satan is described as a deceiver. We are warned that he will, if possible, deceive us. I think that all of us will agree that this is true. The Bible not only says so; we ourselves have all seen deceived people. Sometimes, they are real easy to spot. We are not surprised at this. Satan has been around longer than the human race. He is the father of lies.He has experience. He is good at what he does. My question is, since this is a common occurance, how do you know that you are not the one being deceived? Satan doesn't just work on the stupid and the uneducated, and he doesn't say, "Now I am going to deceive you". In fact, the way he operates, the one being deceived never realizes that he or she is deceived. It is always someone else. If you knew you were deceived, you would not be deceived. So how do you know that you aren't? Terry Judy: Very good question Terry; I've been wondering how to approach the subject of demon oppressed/led believers and you are making it easier. As we see in the life of Abraham (the father of faith) the fruit of faith is obedience to the will of God. We shouldrecognize the voice of the Chief Shepherd and obey Him. Eve was deceived because she listened to the wrong voice and acted upon the wrong message.At one point during his ministry to the Church at Corinth the apostle Paul tells themhe isafraid for them "lest somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so their minds might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3) Paulgoes on tospeak of one who comes with another Jesus, a different spirit, and a differentgospel - a scenario which we are all familiar with on TT. Over the 2,000+ years since Calvary the adversary has produced more than 400 different Protestant gospels and this is not includingthe quasi-Christian cults and the RCC. I know from personal experience that it is possible for a born again believer to be deceived because I've been there and today I guard against the spirit of errorby continuing to study to show myself approved to God and to the best of my ability walking in all the light He has given me. We mustknow God andHis ways so that when the othervoice speaks to us or any idea that exalts itself above the clear teaching of God's Word presents itself we are quick to take it captive and cast it down to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:5). Grace and Peace, Judy
[TruthTalk] Adam's Transgression
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] How does God know about right and wrong? DAVEH wrote: If I were to ask that question of you, would you not say that is the definition/nature of God? DavidM: Not exactly. Calvinists would tend to answer this way, but I do not believe that right and wrong is defined by God per se, meaning, I do not believe something is right just because God says it is right. I believe that God is always right because his knowledge is complete enough to know the difference in every situation. I believe that the definition of right and wrong exists outside of any reference to God. Judy: Who makes the determination then if not God? Who is the one who defines what is good and what is evil? Judy -- 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.
[TruthTalk] [TruthTalk Digest]
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perry wrote: If I may interject, neither Adam nor Eve were physically immortal to start with. DavidM: I'm VERY surprised to hear this response. Why do you believe that they were created as mortal beings who would die? Judy: I'm not Perry (hope you don't mind Perry), I would say they were potentially mortal depending upon from which tree it was that they ate. Perry wrote: The death that God was talking about was spiritual death! Does not spiritual life result in physical life, and spiritual death result in physical death? Judy: Yes and there were two trees in the garden, one produced life and the other death. DavidM: The literal reading of Genesis 2:17 is as follows: Green's Literal Translation: but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die. (Genesis 2:17 LITV) Young's Literal Translation: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.' (Genesis 2:17 YLT) The dying thou dost die phrase is called among the Rabbi's a doubled death. They interpret it to refer to both spiritual and physical death. This makes a lot of sense to me. Perry wrote: Recall that they were bannished from the garden so they would not partake of the tree of life and, thus, live forever in a fallen and unredeemable state. Kicking them out of the garden was an act of mercy, to remove them from the presence of the tree of life, thus allowing them to be remain redeemable. DavidM: I don't understand. Why would living forever make them unredeemable? Judy: Because they would be living eternally in that present fallen state with no other option. DavidM: It seems to me that the problem of them living forever is not that they would be unredeemable, but rather that their progeny being born in a sinful state would have problems created by the longevity of their ancestors. This is perhaps partly why the lifespan of man was continually shortened as the iniquity of men increased. Modern man's lifespan is one-tenth of those who lived in Adam's generation. Judy: Because of sin and the curses that accompany it. One good plague can wipe out a lot of people before their time. Judy -- 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] deceived
Thanks Judy. Terry - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:39 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] deceived From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me throw y'all something to ponder. I'm tired of scratching my head alone. Consider this: Satan is described as a deceiver. We are warned that he will, if possible, deceive us. I think that all of us will agree that this is true. The Bible not only says so; we ourselves have all seen deceived people. Sometimes, they are real easy to spot. We are not surprised at this. Satan has been around longer than the human race. He is the father of lies.He has experience. He is good at what he does. My question is, since this is a common occurance, how do you know that you are not the one being deceived? Satan doesn't just work on the stupid and the uneducated, and he doesn't say, "Now I am going to deceive you". In fact, the way he operates, the one being deceived never realizes that he or she is deceived. It is always someone else. If you knew you were deceived, you would not be deceived. So how do you know that you aren't? Terry Judy: Very good question Terry; I've been wondering how to approach the subject of demon oppressed/led believers and you are making it easier. As we see in the life of Abraham (the father of faith) the fruit of faith is obedience to the will of God. We shouldrecognize the voice of the Chief Shepherd and obey Him. Eve was deceived because she listened to the wrong voice and acted upon the wrong message.At one point during his ministry to the Church at Corinth the apostle Paul tells themhe isafraid for them "lest somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so their minds might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3) Paulgoes on tospeak of one who comes with another Jesus, a different spirit, and a differentgospel - a scenario which we are all familiar with on TT. Over the 2,000+ years since Calvary the adversary has produced more than 400 different Protestant gospels and this is not includingthe quasi-Christian cults and the RCC. I know from personal experience that it is possible for a born again believer to be deceived because I've been there and today I guard against the spirit of errorby continuing to study to show myself approved to God and to the best of my ability walking in all the light He has given me. We mustknow God andHis ways so that when the othervoice speaks to us or any idea that exalts itself above the clear teaching of God's Word presents itself we are quick to take it captive and cast it down to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:5). Grace and Peace, Judy
RE: [TruthTalk] Adam's Transgression
Judy wrote: Who makes the determination then if not God? Who is the one who defines what is good and what is evil? Good is defined by the utility of the action. If I love my child and feed her and nourish her, that is good because the fruit of my actions is beneficial. It doesn't matter whether God declares it good or not. It would be good whether God declared it good or not, and even if there was no God, it would still be good. Nevertheless, we understand that God is always on the side of good, so in complicated matters that involve knowledge which we lack, we can trust the Word of God so that we can be sure that what he calls evil is truly evil and what he calls good is truly good. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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] [TruthTalk Digest]
2/5 DavidM: ..were [they]created as mortal beings who would die? no; they were 'creatures' of creation, or, of theCreator,therefore, they were mortal/s God is immortal (meaning, basically,'not mortal') this issue has nothin' to do with death (of mortals), a factor in Creation ex post facto http://OzG2004.blogspot.com
Re: [TruthTalk] arophobia: fear of reason
Blaine: Do you suppose these men who paid Judas 30 peices of silver (the price of a slave) were aware, along with Judas, that this was the Messiah they were doing away with? There is evidence they were. Judy: Where is this evidence? I just showedfrom 1 Corinthians above that neither Satan nor the people he used in executing his supposed plan knew what they were about. **Blaine: I doubt they understood fully what theresults of killing the Son of God would mean--but that they knew who he was there is little doubt. See the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, Matthew 21:33-45, wherein the laborers first killed the servants of the Lord of the vineyard, then killed the son, or, as he was called, the heir. The wicked laborers said, ""This is the heir, come, let us kill him, and seize on his inheritance." And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. . . . And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spoke of them. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Blaine: There is no reason against the Truth and the people knew Jesus spoke as one having authority and not like the scribes (Mark 1:22 and Matthew 7:29). It was not for "arophobia" that the Jewish leadershad him killed, it was for envy (that green eyed monster);this is what the scripture teaches. Pilate the Roman Governor wasthe one with civil authority and he was aware of this(see Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10) Judy From: "Blaine Borrowman" Blaine: The Jews were free to use reason to counter his statements, but chose instead to use their authority and influence to have him killed. This was an extreme form of arophobia, I would say.
[TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Deseret Morning News Following a Monday meeting with Salt Lake City Attorney Ed Rutan, Mayor Rocky Anderson said he thinks the city can censor some of the infamous street preaching that goes on near LDS Church headquarters downtown. In the "next couple of days," Anderson said, the city will produce a document detailing what sort of speech, words and decibel levels are constitutionally protected and what speech the city can prohibit. Following the release of that document, Anderson said he will recommend to the City Council some "fairly minor revisions" of city ordinances governing free speech. The changes come several months after Anderson dismayed by what he considers boorish behavior by street preachers asked Rutan to examine the city's rules governing free speech. Rutan, along with Deputy City Attorney Boyd Ferguson, briefed Anderson Monday after examining between five and 15 city ordinances that govern various aspects of free speech, including the city's ordinance on disturbing the peace. "We are taking a look at ordinances that potentially impact free speech," Rutan said. For years now, Christian street preachers have descended on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquarters during semi-annual conferences and other church events to preach against the LDS faith. In recent years, street preaching has become more controversial with reports that the preachers have called LDS women "whores" and "harlots." After his meeting with Rutan, Anderson, himself a former civil rights attorney and ex-American Civil Liberties Union of Utah board member, said that language is likely illegal not protected by the Constitution. Calling someone's mother, wife or new bride a "whore" or "harlot," Anderson said, would likely be considered part of the so-called "fighting words doctrine" a body of case law explaining that certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment. These are words that are so inflammatory they are reasonably likely to incite another person to violence. "The concern that I had arose when I first heard accounts of so-called street preachers yelling at new brides that they are whores and harlots and telling children that their mothers are whores and harlots," Anderson said. "That kind of speech is very likely not constitutionally protected and would be considered fighting words." This past October, during the church's general conference, two conference attendees were incited to violence after street preachers donned sacred religious clothing worn by LDS faithful. The two men were cited for assault and theft after ripping the clothing off the preachers.
[TruthTalk] Adam's Transgression
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy wrote: Who makes the determination then if not God? Who is the one who defines what is good and what is evil? DavidM: Good is defined by the utility of the action. If I love my child and feed her and nourish her, that is good because the fruit of my actions is beneficial. Judy: You sound like Charles Finney David. This may be his definition and yours but it is not necessarily God's. What if you did all of the above in an overweening spirit of pride. Would that still be good in God's eyesight? He says he is far from the proud but gives grace to the humble. DavidM: It doesn't matter whether God declares it good or not. It would be good whether God declared it good or not, and even if there was no God, it would still be good. Judy: In whose opinion? Brute beasts take care of their young, they do it by the instinct that God put in them but this does not make them good. DavidM: Nevertheless, we understand that God is always on the side of good, so in complicated matters that involve knowledge which we lack, we can trust the Word of God so that we can be sure that what he calls evil is truly evil and what he calls good is truly good. Judy: He is not only on the side of good, He is the source of all that is good. Judy -- 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.
[TruthTalk] Immortality Redemption
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why would living forever make them unredeemable? Judy wrote: Because they would be living eternally in that present fallen state with no other option. DavidM: What do you mean, with no other option. Jesus could still redeem them and they could believe in him. Why must one eventually die physically in order to be able to be redeemed? Judy: Because the first creation (the first Adam) and his seed are cursed. God does not want to spend eternity with a bunch of devils. This is why they were banished from the garden (see Genesis 3:22-24) DavidM: Paul teaches that we who are alive will not prevent those who have died. It seems to me that redemption works just fine with those who are still alive. I don't understand why you or Perry would say that there must be physical death in order for a plan of redemption to be able to be offered to man. Judy: Flesh and blood do not inherit the Kingdom. The first Adam became a living soul, the second a life-giving spirit - We must agree with God repent of our sin and reckon our old man dead before we are fit for the Kingdom of God. DavidM: I can understand how man might not want to be redeemed if he is not looking at physical death ahead of him, but I do not understand how physical death is a requirement for redemption to be offered. Judy: Depends where one is walking I guess. There is no record that Enoch or Elijah died physically and noone knows where Moses is buried. However, there is no doubt that all three walked closely with God which would mean - after the Spirit. DavidM: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord SHALL NOT PREVENT THEM WHICH ARE ASLEEP. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then WE WHICH ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN SHALL BE CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM IN THE CLOUDS, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 KJV). Judy: Note it is the dead in Christ who are dead and those who are alive in Christ - Noone makes it apart from the sacrifice and obedience to the Word of God. Grace and Peace, Judy -- 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] street preachers/free speech
Hey Blaine how come you censored out the rest of the story? Not Faith promoting? Here it is: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590040864,00.html But Anderson said the Constitution likely protects the preachers' ability to wear such garments. It would be similar to protections on flag burning, he said. "While it induces outrage in a lot of people, the First Amendment seems to protect against restrictions of that sort of thing," the mayor said. Lonnie Pursifull, head of the Utah chapter of the Street Preachers Fellowship, said any efforts to curb preachers' speech would be met with legal action. Preaching, Pursifull said, is protected as "religious speech" under the Constitution. Pursifull said he only calls LDS women "spiritual whores" for "following after another God and another Jesus." "(Anderson) can look at tightening any laws he wants. I guarantee it won't stand up in federal court," Pursifull said. "The only reason he's doing it is because of the Mormon Church. It's the Mormon Church that's pushing his buttons and telling him what to do. He's being led around by the nose by the Mormon Church." E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deseret Morning News Following a Monday meeting with Salt Lake City Attorney Ed Rutan, Mayor Rocky Anderson said he thinks the city can censor some of the infamous street preaching that goes on near LDS Church headquarters downtown. In the "next couple of days," Anderson said, the city will produce a document detailing what sort of speech, words and decibel levels are constitutionally protected and what speech the city can prohibit. Following the release of that document, Anderson said he will recommend to the City Council some "fairly minor revisions" of city ordinances governing free speech. The changes come several months after Anderson dismayed by what he considers boorish behavior by street preachers asked Rutan to examine the city's rules governing free speech. Rutan, along with Deputy City Attorney Boyd Ferguson, briefed Anderson Monday after examining between five and 15 city ordinances that govern various aspects of free speech, including the city's ordinance on disturbing the peace. "We are taking a look at ordinances that potentially impact free speech," Rutan said. For years now, Christian street preachers have descended on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquarters during semi-annual conferences and other church events to preach against the LDS faith. In recent years, street preaching has become more controversial with reports that the preachers have called LDS women "whores" and "harlots." After his meeting with Rutan, Anderson, himself a former civil rights attorney and ex-American Civil Liberties Union of Utah board member, said that language is likely illegal not protected by the Constitution. Calling someone's mother, wife or new bride a "whore" or "harlot," Anderson said, would likely be considered part of the so-called "fighting words doctrine" a body of case law explaining that certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment. These are words that are so inflammatory they are reasonably likely to incite another person to violence. "The concern that I had arose when I first heard accounts of so-called street preachers yelling at new brides that they are whores and harlots and telling children that their mothers are whores and harlots," Anderson said. "That kind of speech is very likely not constitutionally protected and would be considered fighting words." This past October, during the church's general conference, two conference attendees were incited to violence after street preachers donned sacred religious clothing worn by LDS faithful. The two men were cited for assault and theft after ripping the clothing off the preachers. ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=xclear.gif ATTACHMENT part 3 image/gif name=advertisement3.gif Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine: I knew you would want the honor of finishing the article Kevin, so I saved it for you. We haven't been hearing too much from you, so I wanted to get you rejuvenated (:)Where you been? Sleepin? See how well I know you? LOL - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Hey Blaine how come you censored out the rest of the story? Not Faith promoting? Here it is: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590040864,00.html But Anderson said the Constitution likely protects the preachers' ability to wear such garments. It would be similar to protections on flag burning, he said. "While it induces outrage in a lot of people, the First Amendment seems to protect against restrictions of that sort of thing," the mayor said. Lonnie Pursifull, head of the Utah chapter of the Street Preachers Fellowship, said any efforts to curb preachers' speech would be met with legal action. Preaching, Pursifull said, is protected as "religious speech" under the Constitution. Pursifull said he only calls LDS women "spiritual whores" for "following after another God and another Jesus." "(Anderson) can look at tightening any laws he wants. I guarantee it won't stand up in federal court," Pursifull said. "The only reason he's doing it is because of the Mormon Church. It's the Mormon Church that's pushing his buttons! and telling him what to do. He's being led around by the nose by the Mormon Church." E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deseret Morning News Following a Monday meeting with Salt Lake City Attorney Ed Rutan, Mayor Rocky Anderson said he thinks the city can censor some of the infamous street preaching that goes on near LDS Church headquarters downtown. In the "next couple of days," Anderson said, the city will produce a document detailing what sort of speech, words and decibel levels are constitutionally protected and what speech the city can prohibit. Following the release of that document, Anderson said he will recommend to the City Council some "fairly minor revisions" of city ordinances governing free speech. The changes come several months after Anderson dismayed by what he considers boorish behavior by street preachers asked Rutan to examine the city's rules governing free speech. Rutan, along with Deputy City Attorney Boyd Ferguson, briefed Anderson Monday after examinin! g between five and 15 city ordinances that govern various aspects of free speech, including the city's ordinance on disturbing the peace. "We are taking a look at ordinances that potentially impact free speech," Rutan said. For years now, Christian street preachers have descended on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquarters during semi-annual conferences and other church events to preach against the LDS faith. In recent years, street preaching has become more controversial with reports that the preachers have called LDS women "whores" and "harlots." After his meeting with Rutan, Anderson, himself a former civil rights attorney and ex-American Civil Liberties Union of Utah board member, said that language is likely illegal not protected by the Constitution. Calling someone's mother, wife or new bride a "whore" or "harlot," Anderson said, wo! uld likely be considered part of the so-called "fighting words doctrine" a body of case law explaining that certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment. These are words that are so inflammatory they are reasonably likely to incite another person to violence. "The concern that I had arose when I first heard accounts of so-called street preachers yelling at new brides that they are whores and harlots and telling children that their mothers are whores and harlots," Anderson said. "That kind of speech is very likely not constitutionally protected and would be considered fighting words." This past October, during the church's general conference, two conference attendees were incited to violence after street preachers donned sacred religious clothing worn by LDS faithful. The two men were cited for assault and theft after ripping the clothing off the preachers. ATTACHMENT part 2 im! age/gif name=xclear.gif ATTACHMENT part 3 image/gif name=advertisement3.gif Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo!
RE: [TruthTalk] Original sin
Judy wrote: Only if he was a man with Adam's blood coursing through his veins which would impart Adam's iniquity and disqualify him as a sacrifice for our sin. I'm not buying what you're selling, Judy. :-) If the blood of a lowly lamb can atone for sin, how much more can the blood of a righteous man born of the seed of Adam atone for sin. On the other hand, if Jesus did not have the blood of Adam coursing through his veins, he would have been disqualified from being an eternal sacrifice for our sin. Only the son of man could redeem man. If Jesus had come through some other way, he would have been a thief and a robber. However, Jesus came through the door, that is to say, his flesh. Jesus became man that he might redeem man rightfully so. Satan came in his own form and as a thief usurped the authority of man. Jesus came in the flesh of man so that he rightfully possessed that which belonged to him as a man. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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.
[TruthTalk] arophobia: fear of reason
From: Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine: Do you suppose these men who paid Judas 30 peices of silver (the price of a slave) were aware, along with Judas, that this was the Messiah they were doing away with?There is evidence they were. Judy: Where is this evidence? I just showed from 1 Corinthians above that neither Satan nor the people he used in executing his supposed plan knew what they were about. **Blaine: I doubt they understood fully what the results of killing the Son of God would mean--but that they knew who he was there is little doubt. See the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, Matthew 21:33-45, wherein the laborers first killed the servants of the Lord of the vineyard, then killed the son, or, as he was called, the heir. The wicked laborers said, This is the heir, come, let us kill him, and seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. . . . And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spoke of them. Judy: They may have been paranoid and thought he was talking about them but their main concern was the people and who they were listening to. The scribes and pharisees referred to Jesus as Rabbi or teacher but only a few of them had any kind of spiritual insight Anyone who truly had a revelation about who he was bowed down and worshipped Him. The religious leaders never did this, they never did know that he was their Messiah. Judy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Blaine: There is no reason against the Truth and the people knew Jesus spoke as one having authority and not like the scribes (Mark 1:22 and Matthew 7:29). It was not for arophobia that the Jewish leaders had him killed, it was for envy (that green eyed monster); this is what the scripture teaches. Pilate the Roman Governor was the one with civil authority and he was aware of this (see Matthew 27:18 and Mark 15:10) Judy From: Blaine Borrowman Blaine: The Jews were free to use reason to counter his statements, but chose instead to use their authority and influence to have him killed. This was an extreme form of arophobia, I would say. -- 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.
[TruthTalk] deceived
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine: But Judy, if what presents itself as the "clear teaching of God's word" is really so clear, how come your stats--400 different Protestant gospels-- suggest otherwise? Judy: The fact that there are so many different gospels does not reflect poorly on the Word itself, the problem nowis with the people, same as it has always been. God said "My people perish for lack of knowledge" and He does not bless ignorance. Blaine: I do not doubt they seem clear to you,and they do to me too, but they apparently also seem clear to those who draw different conclusions from you or I--and even you and I do not always agree.There are not only the Protestants who cannot agree, but we have a growing number of Messianics who disagree with what is fundamentally agreed upon by most Protestants-- that the feasts of the Law of Moses no longer need to be kept, the Sabbath should be observed on Sunday, not Saturday, etc. All this from the same "clear teaching of God's word." Read the following, and tell wethat this does not describe our day: Judy: As I say above, it is not a problem with the Word, the problem is with the people. Scripture is quite clear about the Levitical law and rituals being nailed to the cross. Isaiah 29:9-10 Stay yourselves, and wonder, cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine. They stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men. Judy: The above was true in Isaiah's day, it was true when Jesus spoke these words to the Jews (Matt 13:14-16)and it is true today but God has always had a people, there has always been a remnant who loved God and love His Truth. Judy From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me throw y'all something to ponder. I'm tired of scratching my head alone. Consider this: Satan is described as a deceiver. We are warned that he will, if possible, deceive us. I think that all of us will agree that this is true. The Bible not only says so; we ourselves have all seen deceived people. Sometimes, they are real easy to spot. We are not surprised at this. Satan has been around longer than the human race. He is the father of lies.He has experience. He is good at what he does. My question is, since this is a common occurance, how do you know that you are not the one being deceived? Satan doesn't just work on the stupid and the uneducated, and he doesn't say, "Now I am going to deceive you". In fact, the way he operates, the one being deceived never realizes that he or she is deceived. It is always someone else. If you knew you were deceived, you would not be deceived. So how do you know that you aren't? Terry Judy: Very good question Terry; I've been wondering how to approach the subject of demon oppressed/led believers and you are making it easier. As we see in the life of Abraham (the father of faith) the fruit of faith is obedience to the will of God. We shouldrecognize the voice of the Chief Shepherd and obey Him. Eve was deceived because she listened to the wrong voice and acted upon the wrong message.At one point during his ministry to the Church at Corinth the apostle Paul tells themhe isafraid for them "lest somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so their minds might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3) Paulgoes on tospeak of one who comes with another Jesus, a different spirit, and a differentgospel - a scenario which we are all familiar with on TT. Over the 2,000+ years since Calvary the adversary has produced more than 400 different Protestant gospels and this is not includingthe quasi-Christian cults and the RCC. I know from personal experience that it is possible for a born again believer to be deceived because I've been there and today I guard against the spirit of errorby continuing to study to show myself approved to God and to the best of my ability walking in all the light He has given me. We mustknow God andHis ways so that when the othervoice speaks to us or any idea that exalts itself above the clear teaching of God's Word presents itself we are quick to take it captive and cast it down to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:5).
Re: [TruthTalk] Please tell me this is true! LOL
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:48 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Please tell me this is true! LOL Stirring up the Spirit You can explain the concept of the Holy Spirit-filled life using this simple recipe for chocolate milk. Step One: Add chocolate syrup to a glass of milk. Step Two: Stir. In the Christian life, the "chocolate" of the Holy Spirit is added at the moment of salvation. Ephesians 1:13 explains that we receive the Spirit when we trust in Jesus as our Savior. The Spirit never needs to be added again. However, in milk the chocolate syrup settles on the bottom of the glass until the milk is stirred up. Then the appearance and taste change completely. Similarly, a Christian cannot experience the sweetness of spiritual change and growth until he or she asks the Holy Spirit to be in control. Then the Spirit produces godliness in a Christian's life, as promised in Galatians 5:22,23. God adds the Spirit when we become Christians, but we must "stir" Him up in our lives daily. Challenge a Christian by asking, "Are you settled or sweet?"How can you stir up the Holy Spirit in your life? When you receive Christ as your Savior and Lord, God gave you an amazing gift -- His very life, breath and power lives in You in the person of the Holy Spirit. We experience the Holy Spirit's constant help, guidance, comfort as we ask Him and we trust Him to keep on filling us. When we do, we overflow: "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Romans 15:13). Hey Laura: Not really a bad analogy. Pretty much on target, and simple enough to understand. Being filled with the Holy Spirit has been made to seem way too complicated. We seem to expect some mystery or something really deep or supernatural, but it is really simple. You would know what I meant if I said that I was filled with rage, or filled with jealousy, or filled with anger. It would be obvious to you that I was allowing one of those emotions to control my thinking, my behavior, my attitude, my life. That is how it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. He controls the attitude, the behavior, the thinking, the life of every Christian. Deny self, follow me. Real simple. Terry
[TruthTalk] Double Post
TTr's, My messages have been posting very late to the group, so I reposted one of them thinking the previous one was lost, but it came through. So, if you see a similar message from me come by, please ignore it. Perry From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Please tell me this is true! LOL Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:28:45 -0600 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:48 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Please tell me this is true! LOL Stirring up the Spirit You can explain the concept of the Holy Spirit-filled life using this simple recipe for chocolate milk. Step One: Add chocolate syrup to a glass of milk. Step Two: Stir. In the Christian life, the chocolate of the Holy Spirit is added at the moment of salvation. Ephesians 1:13 explains that we receive the Spirit when we trust in Jesus as our Savior. The Spirit never needs to be added again. However, in milk the chocolate syrup settles on the bottom of the glass until the milk is stirred up. Then the appearance and taste change completely. Similarly, a Christian cannot experience the sweetness of spiritual change and growth until he or she asks the Holy Spirit to be in control. Then the Spirit produces godliness in a Christian's life, as promised in Galatians 5:22,23. God adds the Spirit when we become Christians, but we must stir Him up in our lives daily. Challenge a Christian by asking, Are you settled or sweet? How can you stir up the Holy Spirit in your life? When you receive Christ as your Savior and Lord, God gave you an amazing gift -- His very life, breath and power lives in You in the person of the Holy Spirit. We experience the Holy Spirit's constant help, guidance, comfort as we ask Him and we trust Him to keep on filling us. When we do, we overflow: May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:13). Hey Laura: Not really a bad analogy. Pretty much on target, and simple enough to understand. Being filled with the Holy Spirit has been made to seem way too complicated. We seem to expect some mystery or something really deep or supernatural, but it is really simple. You would know what I meant if I said that I was filled with rage, or filled with jealousy, or filled with anger. It would be obvious to you that I was allowing one of those emotions to control my thinking, my behavior, my attitude, my life. That is how it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. He controls the attitude, the behavior, the thinking, the life of every Christian. Deny self, follow me. Real simple. Terry _ Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/ -- 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] [TruthTalk Digest]
In a recent response to Blaine I posted: ...There are no mortal men and women on this earth. I mistyped mortal...it should have said immortal. Perry From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine wrote: IF Adam had not transgressed, he would have been immortal. No biblical evidence that this is true. This is an erroneous premise. I assume you agree with that? Nope. Then, do you believe immortal men and women can have children? There are no mortal men and women on this earth. When we are resurrected the mortal put on immortality. (1 Cor 15:53) _ Choose now from 4 levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage - no more account overload! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ -- 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] deceived
Terry wrote: My question is ... how do you know that you are not the one being deceived? If it was all up to intellect, I don't think a person could know for sure. However, I think if a person truly walks in faith and holiness, God reveals his truth to us and we can be confident that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. Anybody who knows of sin in his life should also suspect that he is deceived in some areas of his life. On the other hand, when a person has a pure conscience and his eye is single on the Lord, his whole body becomes full of great light. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. (John 7:17-18 KJV) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. Thank you David. 'preciate your thoughts. Terry -- 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] deceived
So if you buy into the "400 different gospels" idea, The next step is the "One True Church" idea. Is this what you are leading to Blaine? By the way how many "different gospels" do the followers of Joe Smith have? LDS, RLDS, and hundreds of others. Make any difference whether it is 300 or 400? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine: But Judy, if what presents itself as the "clear teaching of God's word" is really so clear, how come your stats--400 different Protestant gospels-- suggest otherwise? Judy: The fact that there are so many different gospels does not reflect poorly on the Word itself, the problem nowis with the people, same as it has always been. God said "My people perish for lack of knowledge" and He does not bless ignorance. Blaine: I do not doubt they seem clear to you,and they do to me too, but they apparently also seem clear to those who draw different conclusions from you or I--and even you and I do not always agree.There are not only the Protestants who cannot agree, but we have a growing number of Messianics who disagree with what is fundamentally agreed upon by most Protestants-- that the feasts of the Law of Moses no longer need to be kept, the Sabbath should be observed on Sunday, not Saturday, etc. All this from the same "clear teaching of God's word." Read the following, and tell wethat this does not describe our day: Judy: As I say above, it is not a problem with the Word, the problem is with the people. Scripture is quite clear about the Levitical law and rituals being nailed to the cross. Isaiah 29:9-10 Stay yourselves, and wonder, cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine. They stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men. Judy: The above was true in Isaiah's day, it was true when Jesus spoke these words to the Jews (Matt 13:14-16)and it is true today but God has always had a people, there has always been a remnant who loved God and love His Truth. Judy From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me throw y'all something to ponder. I'm tired of scratching my head alone. Consider this: Satan is described as a deceiver. We are warned that he will, if possible, deceive us. I think that all of us will agree that this is true. The Bible not only says so; we ourselves have all seen deceived people. Sometimes, they are real easy to spot. We are not surprised at this. Satan has been around longer than the human race. He is the father of lies.He has experience. He is good at what he does. My question is, since this is a common occurance, how do you know that you are not the one being deceived? Satan doesn't just work on the stupid and the uneducated, and he doesn't say, "Now I am going to deceive you". In fact, the way he operates, the one being deceived never realizes that he or she is deceived. It is always someone else. If you knew you were deceived, you would not be deceived. So how do you know that you aren't? Terry Judy: Very good question Terry; I've been wondering how to approach the subject of demon oppressed/led believers and you are making it easier. As we see in the life of Abraham (the father of faith) the fruit of faith is obedience to the will of God. We shouldrecognize the voice of the Chief Shepherd and obey Him. Eve was deceived because she listened to the wrong voice and acted upon the wrong message.At one point during his ministry to the Church at Corinth the apostle Paul tells themhe isafraid for them "lest somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so their minds might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3) Paulgoes on tospeak of one who comes with another Jesus, a different spirit, and a differentgospel - a scenario which we are all familiar with on TT. Over the 2,000+ years since Calvary the adversary has produced more than 400 different Protestant gospels and this is not includingthe quasi-Christian cults and the RCC. I know from personal experience that it is possible for a born again believer to be deceived because I've been there and today I guard against the spirit of errorby continuing to study to show myself approved to God and to the best of my ability walking in all the light He has given me. We mustknow God andHis ways so that when the othervoice speaks to us or any idea that exalts itself above the clear teaching of God's Word presents itself we are quick to take it captive and cast it down to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:5). Grace and Peace, Judy Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
