[TruthTalk] arophobia: fear of reason
From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]**Blaine: I respectfully (DavidH has taught me a few things) disagree. (:) They definitely were keeping their fingers on the pulse of the common folk, I have no contention with that. But they did it because these folks were the source of their power, wealth and social status. Judy: They weren't elected officials Blaine. The seat of Moses was something instituted by God. Blaine: These men--scribes and Pharisees-- were the ones who bought and sold in the temple, and were the ones Jesus drove out on two different occasions. Judy: I understand there to have been just one of these incidents; but yes the religious leaders were in charge of what went on at the temple. Blaine: They clearly saw Jesus Christ as a rival to their own control over the source (the people) of what they valued most--money, power, status. Their hearts were so much preoccupied with these things, theyrationalized to themselves they had cause against him sufficient to kill him. Judy: Is killing another human beingever a rational deed even when pre meditated and planned? More likely it issomething done irrationally in the passion of the moment. Blaine: Yet, as Jesus said, they "hated me without a cause." If they had no cause, they must have therefore known who he was. But they chose to get rid of him anyway ... Judy: I do not get the connectionabove. How is hating him for no apparent reason proof that they actually knew who he was? They rejected his teaching and would not believe him for his works sake. Only a few of them such as Nicodemus who visitedhim at night with questions understood and believed the rest had darkened hearts and were as blind as bats.Understand that noone is able to come to Jesus unless they are drawn by the Father so apparently these religious mendid not qualify. Blaine: thus preserving their valued positions in the then current socio- economic status system. Satan has power to tempt people to go for the short-term goals in preference to the long term ones, and they often do cave in. Judy: The Romans hadthesocio economic power in Israel during the time of Jesus earthly ministry;the scribes and pharisees were religious people who could not have had him legally killedwithout the Roman Governor's consent. Blaine: As Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his own soul." This is a good question, but the answer is, people often do exactly that, and this is my whole point. These men preferred the short term goal over the longer term one. They sold their souls for a few pieces of silver, so to speak, just as did Judas Iscariot. Judy: The outcome may have been the same but this was not a mental or rational issue Blaine. These are spiritual realities- the Jewish leaders were full of religious spirits and rather than embrace the truth and allow the truth to make themfree they rejected the Lord of Glory and chose to remain in their chains of hypocrisy and religious bondage. Theirsystem went down along with the temple. Blaine: To use an experience I had once with a woman who confessed she knew Mormonism was true--once having confessed this, she nevertheless refused to be baptized, because, as she later admitted, she didn't want to give up her alcoholic beverages, she didn't want to have to pay a 10% tithe, and most of all she did not want to give up her friends and family, who were all against her becoming a member of the LDS Church. Judy: The woman was apparently confused butI can't grieve for her any more thanfor you and DaveHbecause if you guys had agenuine revelation of the real Jesus you would burnyour books of Mormon, fall at his feetand follow him becoming a sheep rather than a god,because He is in fact the Word of God, the living Word, and the ONLY way to the Kingdom of God and eternal life. Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Dean Moore Fear God and keep His commandments/ trust Jesus - Original Message - From: Blaine Borrowman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/6/2004 6:46:55 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech This is a good question, but I think the answer lies in the degree to which free speech is allowed. Most if not all communities have regulations that put limits on how far the concept of "free speech" may be carried. As one UofU political science professor put it, "your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins." This also applies to freedom of speech. Ordinances that prohibit speech that is likely to provoke or even take on nuisance value should be and often are prohibited. To use another analogy pointed out by the supreme court itself, freedom of speech does not include the right to yell "fire! in a crowded theatre. Dean writes: Can that same person yell "Fire!" if there is in fact a fire in the theatre? We are yelling "The fires of hell are hot"! "Repent of this nonsense!". Not to cause a riot but to open the eyes of the blind so they can have life. Neither should it include the right to be provocative or abusive in speaking to others. As the article pointed out, calling young brides whores was in this category. Dean writes: In all my years of going to conference-I have never heard any street preacher use the word "whore" in any reference to any Mormon or ant other person-at SLC. They preach the gospel and after you last visit to us-you stated that we were nice people. So who are those that provoke or abuse? No effort was made to mitigate the meanings being conveyed, either, as the leader of the street preachers maintains. These guys were just out there screaming obscenities. Dean writes: That is a lie Blaine-You were there- how many obscenities did you hear?Did you even hear one?You came away say that we were nice guys you said that here on TT.We have many young childrenand even babies out there with us-what preacher would do this in front of their children not to mention their wives?We correct people for using strong/foul language in front of women and children or if they use it at all-preacher or otherwise. On the other hand -I have been cursed with all manner foul words-for 30-45 min straight by a young man while the Mormon encouraged him. Rocky Anderson is himself, as the article points out, a former ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) attorney, and I think he has tried very hard to look at both sides of the situation. I like to believe that even though he has a past record for leaning toward the anti-LDS point of view, he nevertheless is the best man for the job as Mayor of Salt Lake City. He has repeatedly proven himself to be the man of the hour in seeking solutions to the major problems being provoked by the agressiveness of the street preachers. I even believe God raised him up for the present situation. Dean writes: Aggressiveness? We preach the gospel and declare certain items as not of God to make one righteous while the Mormons threaten to kill us for doing so. There may be blood on the streets of SLC this year but who's blood?It will be street preacher blood-Christian blood for the trees around the temple to grow by. We speak words from the bible-Mormons throw punches. To me it is simple. Mormons are not Christians only want-a-be's who keep their sin while claiming Christianity-in the mountains we call that hypocritical.
RE: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
Michael perceives a contradiction because he sees the one-third and two-thirds of the hosts of heaven as all being angels. Blaine wrote: The other two-thirds are you and I and Blaine also wrote: I doubt if I was ever an angel but I am sure I was a spirit personage in premortal life. The only way to avoid a contradiction that I see is if the two-thirds were comprised of both angels and another category of spirit beings. So does this mean that the one-third who were deceived were not all angels, and the two-thirds who were not deceived were not all angels? What is the difference between a spirit personage and an angel? As far as I know, in Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox thought, these hosts of heaven (the two-thirds not deceived and the one-third who were deceived) would all be angels. Apparently in Mormon thought they are not? Mormons, please help us understand your thinking here. Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. p.s. In Protestant thought, the one-third who were deceived are not the demons that roam the earth. Rather, they are imprisoned now in Tartarus, a place of hell specially reserved for them. -- 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] Original sin
DavidM wrote: 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. Judy wrote: The blood of lowly lambs was a temporary measure which never did atone for sin - it only covered the sin of Israel as a nation one year - they all looked ahead to the coming of the promised seed. The blood of lambs, while temporary, most certainly did atone for sin. Atonement means covering, so you contradict yourself when you say that it never did atone for sin - it only covered the sin. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest SHALL MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR HIS SIN that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 4:32-35 KJV) DavidM wrote: 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. Judy wrote: What basis in fact do you have for the above statement? This is the conclusion I have come to from years of studying why God had to be clothed with flesh. Why did Christ become flesh? Jesus had to come in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. There also are legal reasons for it. The Bible teaches that Satan is the god of this world, and he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of this world if he would worship him. How did Satan get all this? By deception and stealing. God had the power to take it all away from him by force. Why become flesh? Why suffer? Why humble himself per Philippians 2? The answer comes to us when we consider the legal aspects of ownership and authority. Jesus had to become a man to rightful redeem man. If you deny that Jesus Christ became flesh of the seed of Adam, Abraham, and David, you have a whole lot of explaining to do about why become a man at all which was subject to the pain and misery that Jesus experienced. Such was unnecessary if his true humanity was unnecessary. Judy wrote: The blood of Adam is a contaminant and this is why we are in need of redemption. On what basis in fact do you make this claim? Does the blood of humans prevent the Holy Ghost from indwelling us? Do you imagine some physical change in our blood that happens upon conversion? Judy wrote: You did not answer my question re the 'virgin birth' DavidM. Why the need for a virgin birth if your theory is correct? I did answer your question. There is absolutely no need for the virgin birth, other than it serving as a prophetic sign, like the shadow of the sun dial moving back 10 degrees. DavidM wrote: 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. Judy wrote: The door is Jesus Himself, (you have added the word flesh) Jesus is our door, but human flesh was the door by which Jesus came into the sheepfold to lead and guide us and redeem mankind. Judy wrote: ... Jesus is NOT a flesh body. Have you not read the testimony of Scripture? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not FLESH and bones, AS YE SEE ME HAVE. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:39-43 KJV) For MANY DECEIVERS are entered into the world, WHO CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7 KJV) 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] street preachers/free speech
Blaine wrote: ... I think the answer lies in the degree to which free speech is allowed. Already you are setting yourself up to take out the word free in the word free speech. If speech is restricted, it is not free speech. Think about it. Blaine wrote: Most if not all communities have regulations that put limits on how far the concept of free speech may be carried. That is because men like to control others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate free speech. Most if not all communities have passed ordinances which have illegally infringed upon the right of free speech. Blaine wrote: As one UofU political science professor put it, your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins. This also applies to freedom of speech. No it does not apply to free speech. Speech cannot physically hurt a person the way that a punch can. Blaine wrote: To use another analogy pointed out by the supreme court itself, freedom of speech does not include the right to yell fire! in a crowded theatre. Carefully about taking statements out of context. First of all, in the context of the Supreme Court, this concerns distinguishing between PUBLIC areas and PRIVATE areas. Free speech is not granted in PRIVATE areas such as in theaters. Now if you are going to wrench this statement out of context, at the very least you ought to recognize that if there really was a fire, a person may indeed yell fire within the theater. Right? Blaine wrote: Neither should it include the right to be provocative or abusive in speaking to others. Wrong. The Supreme Court has rule time and time again that the content of free speech cannot be restricted. One can be as provocative as he wants to be in public areas. Now there might be some moral considerations for us concerning the subject of abusiveness. No Christian should abuse others with speech, but in most situations, all prophets have been considered abusive by those within the community who did not accept their message. Blaine wrote: As the article pointed out, calling young brides whores was in this category. A person cannot use words to incite a riot. In this context, I grant you that once a person is involved in stirring people up to commit violence, then he has crossed the line. For example, if a man stands up and urges others to stone the whore, that would be crossing the line. However, if a man hears a woman confess her own promiscuous sexual behavior, and he points out that the woman is a whore because she is engaged in such sexual behavior, that is acceptable. If his goal is to call the whore to repentance, what is wrong with clarifying her need to repent? Blaine, do you think it should be illegal to use words like whore in public? Do you think that words like queer or faggot or homo or homosexual also should be made illegal? What about the word fornication? I had a student this week tell me that he thinks this word (fornication) should not be used by preachers. I asked him what alternative word he would suggest we use, but he couldn't think of one. I was not surprised. :-) Blaine wrote: These guys were just out there screaming obscenities. I don't believe that for a minute. What obscenities did you personally hear out there when you talked with Ruben and Dean? 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] Adams FALL UPWARD
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. In Protestant thought, the one-third who were deceived are not the demons that roam the earth. Rather, they are imprisoned now in Tartarus, a place of hell specially reserved for them. David, I have never heard of Tartarus, nor have I heard that one-third who were deceived are imprisoned now. This brings to mind a few questions. 1) Lead me to the scripture that tells of Tartarus and that the one third who were deceived are improsoned there. 2) If they are all imprisoned, then wouldn't Satan be imprisoned with them? Yet we see scriptures indicating that he is the prince of this world. And he does this alone, without his faithful demon followers? 3) Who are these demons that roam the earth and that inhabit people? 4) Who was the prince of Persia in Daniel 10, whom the messenger that visited Daniel, and Michael, were fighting? 5) Who is the King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28, v 11 ff)? Perry -- 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. _ Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx -- 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] Adams FALL UPWARD
David Miller wrote: Michael perceives a contradiction because he sees the "one-third" and "two-thirds" of the "hosts of heaven" as all being angels. Blaine wrote: > The other two-thirds are you and I and Blaine also wrote: > I doubt if I was ever an angel but I am sure > I was a spirit personage in premortal life. DAVEH: Hm...Blaines comment here puzzles me, as I believe he was one of the Lord's angels who gave battle to Lucifer's angels. However, angels can be defined in several ways.one of which is being a messenger of the Lord to minister to those in mortality. Most instances of Biblical angels relates to such ministrations. The only way to avoid a contradiction that I see is if the two-thirds were comprised of both angels and another category of spirit beings. So does this mean that the one-third who were deceived were not all angels, and the two-thirds who were not deceived were not all angels? What is the difference between a "spirit personage" and an angel? As far as I know, in Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox thought, these "hosts of heaven" (the two-thirds not deceived and the one-third who were deceived) would all be angels. Apparently in Mormon thought they are not? Mormons, please help us understand your thinking here. DAVEH: I've always thought pretty much all the hosts of heaven were angels. Some (2/3) were angels of the Lord who fought against the 1/3 who were angels of Lucifer. Refer to Rev 12:7 Thanks. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. p.s. In Protestant thought, the one-third who were deceived are not the demons that roam the earth. Rather, they are imprisoned now in Tartarus, a place of hell specially reserved for them. DAVEH: Thanx for explaining that, DavidM. So..I assume that Protestants believe that when one is possessed by an evil spirit, that it is NOT one of those 1/3 who are imprisoned in Tartarus? -- ~~~ 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] Adams FALL UPWARD
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: michael douglas wrote: Blainer:. But he was denied the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh, because he made war in heaven, and actually overcame one-third of the hosts of heaven. The other two-thirds are you and I (here Blainer is saying that he is an angel/former angel) and all others who were allowed to take on mortal bodies.17/10/2002 - Michael D to Dave H: Blainer represents this as though the other two thirds have already taken on flesh. DAVEH: He didn't quite say that, but the effect is the same. (IOW.some of those two thirds may yet to be born.) Michael D: I understand that that is what he is saying now. My point is that in our previous discussions, he wassaying something very different. His statements to Perry stopped me in my tracks, so I had to go back and compare them with what he said back then.Clearlythey are contradictions and probably adjusted views. That's my concern here. Of course, nothing is wrong with adjusted views or erring, but to recognise them as such would be important. LikeDavid M. I will await an explanation on this one (although he takes it in a specific direction).Does this meanthat the only angels now are the ones who have died? DAVEH: Not necessarily. As I pointed out above, there are likely some (perhaps a lot) who have yet to come into mortality. In fact, if you look below you can see Blaine specifically said that all angels who minister to the peoples of this earth are either former or future inhabitants of this earth.6/02/2004 - Michael D: Hey Blainer, your statement above contradicts the one immediately below, and the bold, italicized red text further on. Can you explain this? Perry, I am sure you would want to address this as well BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
DAVEH: My latest comments are in PINK... michael douglas wrote: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: michael douglas wrote: Blainer:. But he was denied the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh, because he made war in heaven, and actually overcame one-third of the hosts of heaven. The other two-thirds are you and I (here Blainer is saying that he is an angel/former angel) and all others who were allowed to take on mortal bodies. 17/10/2002 - Michael D to Dave H: Blainer represents this as though the other two thirds have already taken on flesh. DAVEH: He didn't quite say that, but the effect is the same. (IOW.some of those two thirds may yet to be born.) Michael D: I understand that that is what he is saying now. My point is that in our previous discussions, he was saying something very different. DAVEH: It's hard for me to comment on his private discussions with you, Michael. His statements to Perry stopped me in my tracks, so I had to go back and compare them with what he said back then. Clearly they are contradictions and probably adjusted views. DAVEH: If you think Blaine is making contradictory statements, then why did you ask me about it? They didn't seem contradictory to me, hearing only half the conversation. Seems to me you should be asking Blaine instead of me, Michael That's my concern here. Of course, nothing is wrong with adjusted views or erring, but to recognise them as such would be important. Like David M. I will await an explanation on this one (although he takes it in a specific direction). Does this meanthat the only angels now are the ones who have died? DAVEH: Not necessarily. As I pointed out above, there are likely some (perhaps a lot) who have yet to come into mortality. In fact, if you look below you can see Blaine specifically said that all angels who minister to the peoples of this earth are either former or future inhabitants of this earth. 6/02/2004 - Michael D: Hey Blainer, your statement above contradicts the one immediately below, and the bold, italicized red text further on. Can you explain this? Perry, I am sure you would want to address this as well -- ~~~ 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] arophobia: fear of reason
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 3:45 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] arophobia: fear of reason From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]**Blaine: I respectfully (DavidH has taught me a few things) disagree. (:) They definitely were keeping their fingers on the pulse of the common folk, I have no contention with that. But they did it because these folks were the source of their power, wealth and social status. Judy: They weren't elected officials Blaine. The seat of Moses was something instituted by God. **Blaine: The seat of Moses--was it the High Priest's office? If so, the HP office was a political plum during the time of Jesus Christ. Whereas it was by tradition and commandment to be reserved for the seed of Aaron only, during this time it was an appointment from Herod and the Romans alike. Although it was traditionally a lifetime appointment, the office was filled by 28 different men between 37 B.C. and A.D. 68. So, regards your contention that this was not an elected office, you are correct. However,although the power of life and death was reserved for Roman officers,the Jewish leaders had considerable influence--power--as evidenced by the fact they were able to stir up the populace to demand the crucifixion of Jesus. The populace was basically the only thing they both feared and revered, since by manipulating it, they could apparently persuade the Roman governor to go against his own judgements, knowing the last thing he wanted was an insurrection of the populace. Their power to manipulatethe populacecame from the high status/prestige of their offices as members of the Sanhedrin, and as Priests, Levites, teachers, etc., which were traditional offices in the Priesthood of Aaron. Holders of these titles and offices were reverenced by almost all Jews, even Jesus counseled to listen to the HP and elders, but to not do what they did. In their peculiar social structure, holding religious office and having high social status went hand in hand, eclipsed only by the amount of money one could show evidence of having access to--what one social scientist of recent times has called status symbols. Status symbols vary from society to society, but money always seems to be what the symbols represent. In our society, we value expensive cars--the more expensive, the more status associated with the symbol. Jewelry is the same. The more expensive, the better.A $10,000.00 Rolex does not keep better time than an $80.00Citizen watch, but people still want the Rolex aboveany other, because of the status if confers upon the owner. And houses!! A house with five bedrooms and three baths carries more status than one with two bedrooms and one bath (:) Right? But either way, the symbols represent money--and in the case of the Pharisees and other Jewish chief priests and scribes, the source of the money was selling religious items to the populace, and if it could be done on the temple grounds, all the better, as doing such added to the significance and importance of the for-sale items, and therefore higher prices could likely have been charged. The only real fear the Jewish leaders had was the populace in general, whom both the appointed Jewish officials as well as the Romans had nightmares about, since insurrection was an ever-present possibility. They all knew the Jews were an intelligent and religiously zealous bunch, very hard to control at times, especially when it came to religious issues. A popular leader, as Jesus Christ was, became the only real fear these Jewish leaders had. When Christ entered the city of Jerusalem on the colt of an ass, this had tremendous significance to the Jews.Only the seed of David did such an act as that, and only in fulfillment of prophecies known widely among the Jews. The Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites though they were, knew they were destined to obscurity if they did not get rid of this man, whom they knew in their hearts to be the real Messiah. As you said, Judy, for envy they killed him. They willingly shed his innocent blood to protect their power, status and wealth. See Matt 21:15 And when the chief Priests and Scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore afraid. Jesus was crucified the next day, by the way Blaine: These men--scribes and Pharisees-- were the ones who bought and sold in the temple, and were the ones Jesus drove out on two different occasions. Judy: I understand there to have been just one of these incidents; but yes the religious leaders were in charge of what went on at the temple. **Blaine: He did it twice. The first time was
Re: [TruthTalk] Original sin
. Judy wrote: ... Jesus is NOT a flesh body. Have you not read the testimony of Scripture? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not FLESH and bones, AS YE SEE ME HAVE. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. Jesus was fully man. He took on flesh,. He was born of a woman. As he grew, he INCREASED in wisdom and stature. He felt hunger and thirst and pain, He died. Yet Jesus was also fully God. God is the SAME, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He was God in Genesis 1:1, He was God in the womb, He was God on the cross, He is God today and will be God forever. The SAME! Don't ask me to explain it. Just look at God's word. 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] street preachers/free speech
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 9:17 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech Blaine wrote: ... I think the answer lies in the degree to which free speech is allowed. Already you are setting yourself up to take out the word "free" in the word "free speech." If speech is restricted, it is not "free speech." Think about it. Blaine: Well, then freedom of religion must be the same, I would think--we should be "FREE" to do what we desire in that area, too.But the government still places restrictions on the right to have as many wives as one can afford. Another example is the use of Peyote in religious rites. Would you also say that these practices should not come under some government control? Freedom is only the right to do what the law prescribes. Men who would go beyond the law are really not free--in fact they usually end up in jail. (:) If this is free, then good luck. Blaine wrote: Most if not all communities have regulations that put limits on how far the concept of "free speech" may be carried. That is because men like to control others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate free speech. Most if not all communities have passed ordinances which have illegally infringed upon the right of free speech. Blaine: I disagree that it is because "men like to control others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate free speech, " although that may be what happens insome instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the rights of the populace--which is the right not to have to listen to themselves being insulted,provoked, verbally abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins. Applied to the concept of freedom of speech, I would sayinsulting, provoking, and abusing verbally is crossing the line fromsimply throwing a punch and actually connecting. An extreme example of thisare the laws against advocating the overthrow ofthe government. That would be trespassing against society in general--it would be like connecting clearly and with force against where the chin begins, so to speak. Blaine wrote: As one UofU political science professor put it, "your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins." This also applies to freedom of speech. No it does not apply to free speech. Speech cannot physically hurt a person the way that a punch can. **Blaine: I agree. Speech does not hurt, at least not directly. But if the analogy is taken to higher level of abstraction than the literal, loose speech can do a lot of damage. As the scripture says: James 1:26 "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. James 3:6 "Even so the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity." James 3:8 "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." James 3:9 "Therewith (the tongue) we bless God, even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." Blaine wrote: To use another analogy pointed out by the supreme court itself, freedom of speech does not include the right to yell "fire! in a crowded theatre. Carefully about taking statements out of context. First of all, in the context of the Supreme Court, this concerns distinguishing between PUBLIC areas and PRIVATE areas. Free speech is not granted in PRIVATE areas such as in theaters. Blaine: Itmay have that connotation, butbasicallyrelates to endangering others' rights to life and the pursuit of happiness by making loose, irresponsible statements, whether in a public or a private place. Now if you are going to wrench this statement out of context, at the very least you ought to recognize that if there really was a fire, a person may indeed yell fire within the theater. Right? Blaine: I agree. As long as everyone also agrees there is a fire. Some people might conjure up fires in their imaginations, however. In those cases, yelling "fire" would not be justified. Blaine wrote: Neither should it include the right to be provocative or abusive in speaking to others. Wrong. The Supreme Court has rule time and time again that the content of free speech cannot be restricted. One can be as provocative as he wants to be in public areas. Now there might be some moral considerations for us concerning the subject of "abusiveness." No Christian should abuse others with speech, but in most situations, all prophets have been considered abusive by those within the community who did not accept their message. Blaine: The supreme court has not tried the constitutionality of all laws and ordinances held by communities throughout America. Calling someone names--termed abusive language--is
[TruthTalk] Original sin
From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jesus was fully man. He took on flesh,. He was born of a woman. As he grew, he INCREASED in wisdom and stature. He felt hunger and thirst and pain, He died. Yet Jesus was also fully God. God is the SAME, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He was God in Genesis 1:1, He was God in the womb, He was God on the cross, He is God today and will be God forever. The SAME!Don't ask me to explain it. Just look at God's word. Terry Judy: I have no problem with any of the above Terry ... I agree. I never ever saidthat Jesusdid not take upon Himself a body of flesh. Of course he did otherwise he couldn't have died on the cross for you and for me. What I was saying in the partial sentence belowwas supposed to be that in essence Jesus was not primarily a flesh body and just because he was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh did not make himexactly the same as us.. I'll go into more detail when I reply to DavidM. But thanks for your input. Judy Judy wrote:... Jesus is NOT a flesh body. DavidM:Have you not read the testimony of Scripture?Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;for a spirit hath not FLESH and bones, AS YE SEE ME HAVE. And when hehad thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Re: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine, Regarding the article you posted from the Deseret News let me set the record straight for you or anyone who is reading. 1) I was there during the wedding at the your temple the day in question. We were asked to leave so the bride and groom can take pictures without our preaching in the background. I refused due to the fact that Main Street was going to be shut down and we wanted as much time there as possible, so BLAME ROCKY. 2) We were not there to protest any weddings (because we did not even know they were going on), nor did we ever call anyone a whore at any time. 3) I asked a question that seemed to start the wedding party very upset. I said; As a non Mormon and because I've never been inside your temple nor witnessed a temple marriage we are left to speculate from others. Is it true that these priests touch the brides body parts (I will leave that up to your imagination) with oil? To which each wedding party went nuts over and called the police to have us removed. 4) There were news cameras around us, wedding cameras, Mormon Church security cameras AND NO ONE HAS PRODUCED THIS FILM OF CALLING THESE BRIDES WHORES. 5) The police asked us to move and we refused so they stood around and no one was ever arrested. 6) I've personally talked to Rocky (your Mayor) about this film he saw that has us calling these women whores but have yet seen any footage. I have countless media clips where we are accused of disturbing these weddings at the temple but none with us using the word whore IF THEY DID I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD SHOW ON THE LOCAL NEWS. 7) I've even considered suing your Mayor and media for slander. 8) I/we have in times used the word whore your calling the Mayor a vote-whore as he marched with the sodomites during the gay day parade. Which by the is now marching right next to Young's house/temple compared to some side street next to some little park as we have preached to them for years in your backyard WHILE YOUR CHURCH DOES NOTHING! Yet they are getting closer to your sacred temple. We have used the word whoremonger when talking about Smith/Young for obvious reasons and we have used the word whore when preaching against your whole church, as you are flirting with other gods. BUT WE HAVE NEVER CALLED A BRIDE A WHORE.LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL! 9) We are talking to reported Heather May at this time to continue to hammer away our points in your public. !0) You do not understand something here. THIS IS NOT A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE, which could have time/place/manner laws enforced. This is a FREEDOM OF RELIGION ISSUE and therein will your problem be. It is our RELIGION to use the BIBLE and within this BIBLE are found words like WHORE and such. So if you think that you can stop our FREEDOM OF RELIGION..good luck..this will cost your church millions more to try and quench us. Once again just for those who are slow, freedom of speech.NO.freedom of religion YES.where no law can restrict us.SEE YOU AT THE SUPREME COURT, where eyes around this nation has been looking at a motley crew of street preachers vs. the Mormon Church/Salt Lake/Police/Utah/Media (which are all in bed with each other) or do I dare say WHORING off the church. Ruben Israel -- 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] Adams FALL UPWARD
Michael D: Dave H, incidentally, Blaine made his comments relative to posts that you, he and I were releasing to TT. He offered a summary of the LDS position relative to my questions, and your and his previous answers, as I recall. As you would have realized, I included the date of the post the quotes were taken from, but did not include everything for brevity. I really would like Blaine to respond, though. Blaine? Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: My latest comments are in PINK... michael douglas wrote: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: michael douglas wrote: Blainer:. But he was denied the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh, because he made war in heaven, and actually overcame one-third of the hosts of heaven. The other two-thirds are you and I (here Blainer is saying that he is an angel/former angel) and all others who were allowed to take on mortal bodies. 17/10/2002 - Michael D to Dave H: Blainer represents this as though the other two thirds have already taken on flesh. DAVEH: He didn't quite say that, but the effect is the same. (IOW.some of those two thirds may yet to be born.) Michael D: I understand that that is what he is saying now. My point is that in our previous discussions, he was saying something very different. DAVEH: It's hard for me to comment on his private discussions with you, Michael. Michael D: Of course, as stated above they weren't really private... His statements to Perry stopped me in my tracks, so I had to go back and compare them with what he said back then. Clearly they are contradictions and probably adjusted views. DAVEH: If you think Blaine is making contradictory statements, then why did you ask me about it? They didn't seem contradictory to me, hearing only half the conversation. Seems to me you should be asking Blaine instead of me, Michael Michael D: Actually, I thought that is what I did. I think you actually responded to the question I asked in Oct, 2002. I really was only quoting it, not asking it now. I don't mind you making an input now, though. BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
[TruthTalk] free speech in Salt Lake City
Guidelines Regarding Free SpeechAn educational document prepared by the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office A. IntroductionThe First Amendments guarantee of the right of free _expression_ is a fundamental element of our democratic system of government. However, that right of free _expression_ is not absolute. Some kinds of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, are not protected by the First Amendment. In addition, to further significant governmental interests, the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of the exercise of protected speech rights.An example of a time regulation is an ordinance banning loud noises in residential areas during the night. An example of a place regulation is a requirement that parades not be held on certain busy streets. An example of a manner regulation is a restriction on the size of signs carried by picketers.The government cannot impose speech restrictions simply because it disagrees with the message of the speaker. In other words, government regulation of speech must be content-neutral. Furthermore, a time, place, or manner regulation must advance a significant governmental interest, not restrict more speech than necessary to further that interest, and leave speakers with an ample alternative means to express themselves.B. Public SafetyThe City has a significant and compelling interest in maintaining the safety of people on streets and sidewalks. That interest sometimes justifies restrictions on speech rights.For example, the City can pass laws making it illegal to stand in the middle of the street, or to block pedestrians on sidewalks. Those laws are valid, even when enforced against a person who wants to speak in that street or on that sidewalk. The City may also establish temporary regulations for a specific event to address the particular public safety concerns related to that event. For example, a particular event may generate much heavier pedestrian traffic than normal.Furthermore, the police have a duty to protect people exercising their free speech rights from violence aimed at them by a hostile audience.C. Symbolic Speech/Expressive ConductProtected _expression_ is not limited to the spoken or written word. People may communicate a message through expressive conduct, such as wearing an armband, or burning the United States flag, a draft card, or an effigy.A persons conduct is expressive if he or she intends to convey a particularized message, and if it is very likely that people viewing the conduct will understand the message.Any government attempt to restrict such expressive conduct must be unrelated to the suppression of free speech. For example, the government could validly pass a law making it illegal to burn anything (including the American flag) in a particular place due to the fire hazard. Such a law is not aimed at speech, but rather at public safety. On the other hand, the government cannot validly ban the burning of the flag simply because it believes that burning the flag is unpatriotic.Based on those principles, courts have held that many instances of expressive conduct were protected, even though the conduct ridiculed government or religious leaders, religious beliefs, or otherwise seriously offended many people.D. Fighting WordsAs noted above, fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment, so the government can treat them as disorderly conduct or a breach of the peace. Fighting words are defined as personal insults: (1) directed at a particular person or small group of
RE: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
David Miller wrote: p.s. In Protestant thought, the one-third who were deceived are not the demons that roam the earth. Rather, they are imprisoned now in Tartarus, a place of hell specially reserved for them. Perry wrote: I have never heard of Tartarus, nor have I heard that one-third who were deceived are imprisoned now. This brings to mind a few questions. Hi Perry. To tell you the truth, I wish I could simply retract that whole postscript that I gave. :-) I wrote hastily and it just did not come out right. I meant to communicate that in Protestant thought, the one-third are not simply taken to be demons. I acknowledge that Protestant thought is diverse concerning angels, demons, etc. The passage that mentions Tartarus is 2 Peter 2:4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. (2 Peter 2:4 KJV) Some people consider this to be restricted to the Nephilim of Gen. 6, and others would say that they are the initial one-third who fell but that some of these can come up from Tartarus and work among men. There are still other important considerations. You might consider the pit of Rev. 9 in studying Tartarus, and understand that the spirits imprisoned there and released in Rev. 9 are the spirits which were behind Alexander the Great and mentioned in the Daniel 10 passage that you referenced. I wish I had time to get into a discussion of all this right now, but I just don't have the time. It would probably take me two hours to carefully type out my thoughts and the passages that apply. I will say that in my understanding, angels have bodies whereas demons do not. Therefore, Satan is not a demon per se in that he does not possess people and inhabit them. In like manner, the spirit princes mentioned in Daniel 10 I do not see as demons, but rather as fallen angels with bodies. If I say much more, I'm afraid I will raise more questions than I have time to answer with the appropriate Scripture. I hope you can excuse me for my hasty postscript. 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] street preachers/free speech
Blaine wrote: These guys were just out there screaming obscenities. Since you are speaking about me, I was there at the wedding party. Where you there? Or are you speaking third person? "These guys were just out there screaming obscenities" Go ahead tell us what obscene things were said. Or do you prefer to witness falsely? And you want to know whyI say LDS stands for LIARS, decievers, seducers? Are these wordsObscene? Jesus warned against False teachers The Preaching of the Cross is to them that Perish foolishness The Chuch of Jesus Christ Latter day Saints can not save you, Jesus is the way Your Temple garments will never hide your sin, the only covering that will work is the Blood of Jesus Christ and remember: Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Proverbs 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish. Mt 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: Here is the Church owned TV station story, any Obscenities?http://helix.ksl.com/video/ksl/0/0/40.ramView Real Video of Main Street Heckling StoryDay of Heckling on Plaza Thrusts Issues to Forefronthttp://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5sid=4061 We arrived at one conference to news stories such as this: GAG ORDERS? One news story actually said anyone without a permit would face arrest.http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5sid=18426Restrictions on Main Street Considered During LDS Conference - 04/01/2003The city is exploring the idea of temporarily restricting free speech on the Main Street Plaza during this weekend's General Conference. http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02072004/utah/136621.aspDowntown 'fighting words' are spelled out http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590041671,00.htmlRules on free speech unveiled Conduct of street preachers prompts the city's action"Protesters who apply for free _expression_ activity permits will be given the guidelines." How much does the cities "Free Speech Permit" cost?No kidding they actually have a "Free Speech permit".To Whom should we submit our sermons, to have them reviewed for meeting the guidelines? Maybe the city should create a new "Bureau of PC (PermittedCorrect) speech"Many countries have found "travel permits" effective, maybe SLC can be the 1st in the US to institute this policy to keep undesirables out of Utah? All this to appease the Church, and SILENCE it's critics! Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
Blaine: I will give this another shot, hopefully some light will emerge. First, Mormonism teaches there is no such thing as an angel that was not one of God's spirit children to begin with. In other words, there is not a special category of beings called angels, apart from the children of God. This may be the problem--I have wondered if we have not been using the same word, but meaning different things. Mormonism teaches that angels can be any one of four different categories: spirits, resurrected beings, righteous men who are alive,or translated beings. All angels appearing on this earth are in some way one of these categories. Angels as Spirits JS taught that a spirit child of the Father may appear in its glory to those on earth.He taught that angels such as those appearing to Elizabeth and Mary, were such spirits. They may have lived on earth previous to their appearance. Or, they may yet live on the earth--either way, they are not yet resurrected beings (Jesus was the firstfruits of the resurrection). Jehovah, who appeared to Moses, was not an angel but a God, but was in spirit form. He would later take on flesh and be known as Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. When he appears again, however, he will appear in the flesh, as a resurrected being, a personage with a body of flesh and bone, but not blood. He will be spiritual, not carnal, by nature. He will be a purified, sanctified, glorified personage, with the glory of the sun as being typical. Such is also the potential of those who seek to become like him, through his grace and his mediation. (See below, angels as resurrected beings.) Angels as resurrected Beings JS taught that angels can also be persons who have lived on the earth in the flesh, and have since been resurrected. These cannot have been resurrected before the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the first fruits of the resurrection, however. Such an angel (Moroni) JS saw when given the gold plates to translate, and when given the Priesthood (John the Baptist, and Peter and James)--also when given PH keys to work for the dead, the gathering of Israel, and the keys to the dispensation of Abraham, by such angels as Elijah, Moses, and Elias. These angels appear in glorified form, surrounded by light. They are sanctified and purified, as they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, and act underGod's command and are therefore subordinate to him. But their powers are similar to those of God, who gives them his powers, since they are not just his servants, but are his proven friends. Abraham was one such friend.(Isaiah 41:8); so was Moses(Exodus 33:11). So are all those who keep His commandments (John 15:13-14 "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends; Ye are my friends, if you do whatsoever I command you"). Angels as righteous men who were alive at the time There were two angels who visited Abraham and later Lot in Sodom who were apparently righteous men who lived at that time and who were given the mission of carrying out the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. Angels as men who have been translated To Mormons, the word translated means to have been changed so as not to be subject to the powers of the earth, but who still have not died and been resurrected. John the belovedwas told by the Lord hecould tarry until Jesus came again. We believe there are others to whom this state has been granted. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:15 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD Michael perceives a contradiction because he sees the "one-third" and"two-thirds" of the "hosts of heaven" as all being angels. Blaine wrote: The other two-thirds are you and Iand Blaine also wrote: I doubt if I was ever an angel but I am sure I was a spirit personage in premortal life.The only way to avoid a contradiction that I see is if the two-thirdswere comprised of both angels and another category of spirit beings. So does this mean that the one-third who were deceived were not allangels, and the two-thirds who were not deceived were not all angels?What is the difference between a "spirit personage" and an angel?As far as I know, in Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodoxthought, these "hosts of heaven" (the two-thirds not deceived and theone-third who were deceived) would all be angels. Apparently in Mormonthought they are not? Mormons, please help us understand your thinkinghere. Thanks.Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.p.s. In Protestant thought, the one-third who were deceived are not thedemons that roam the earth. Rather, they are imprisoned now inTartarus, a place of hell specially reserved for them.--"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.orgIf you do
RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech
Blaine wrote: I disagree that it is because men like to control others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate free speech, although that may be what happens in some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the rights of the populace--which is the right not to have to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins. You have convinced me that you do not believe in free speech. Maybe you now need to convince yourself. I could respect what you are saying here much more if you just came right out and said that you do not believe in free speech. If people need to be protected from the public speech of others, then this is a clear statement that you do not believe in FREE speech. You believe in CENSURED speech. You want only that speech which is palatable and edifying for everyone. You believe like Dean apparently does, that whoever says anything that is not edifying ought to be silenced after a few rebukes and they still do not listen. Blaine wrote: If what the person is saying is known to him as being an insult to the other person, he are definitely crossing the line, even if by his own definition the word may mean something else. Hold on there. You just crossed a big line in my book. :-) I know that the homosexuals want to be called gay. They are offended to be called a homosexual. However, I am offended that they have hijacked the English language and call themselves gay. I refuse to use the word gay in reference to them, and I rebuke those who call them gay. In my opinion, they are playing into the deceptive game of Satan. Homosexuals are not gay, so we all ought to stop calling them gay! Now here you come along and say that if I know that the term homosexual offends them, then I am crossing the line if I refer to them as homosexual. Or, suppose I use the Biblical word sodomite. Now I know they don't like the word sodomite, so are you saying that when I read Deut. 23:17 in the KJV, that I need to edit the words whore and sodomite out of it before I read it, just because I know that some people will feel insulted? David Miller wrote: Blaine, do you think it should be illegal to use words like whore in public? Do you think that words like queer or faggot or homo or homosexual also should be made illegal? What about the word fornication? I had a student this week tell me that he thinks this word (fornication) should not be used by preachers. I asked him what alternative word he would suggest we use, but he couldn't think of one. I was not surprised. :-) Blaine wrote: Using these terms per se, is often done, even in church services and church scriptural classes. On the other hand, accusing people of being such is and has been held to be basically illegal. I am surprised the street preachers who did this were not sued. LOL. What planet do you live on? If a college student tells me that he or she has sexual intercourse on the weekends with different partners, you can bet that I will refer to that student as a fornicator to the other students. It is NOT illegal to do so, and I have never been sued over it. I remember a girl coming up to me crying one night because the preacher I was with called her a fornicator. She said he had no right to call her that. As I talked with her, I learned that she had slept with three different men that last year and had an abortion too. She was about to go on a missions trip as a missionary the very next week! Well, God brought conviction upon her and I assured her that she WAS a fornicator and that she needed to repent. The preacher was not her problem. Her problem was that she was deceiving herself because she did not see herself as God saw her, which was as she really was: a fornicator. Other Christians had deceived her into thinking that she was a good person. Blaine wrote: Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am not speaking from my personal experience. I am speaking of what I read about later in reliable reports. According to reports from various sources --sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets with the street preachers, media reports, and even reports from members of Protestant denominations-- there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear, even donning some of these garments. Has it ever occurred to you that you have been lied to? Can you imagine what the news reports were when Paul came into town? You Mormons are treating street preachers the same way the Jews treated the apostle Paul. I suggest you go down yourself and see what is going on. Don't base your opinion on glorified gossip. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt,
RE: [TruthTalk] Original sin
Judy wrote: Jesus became flesh and yes he was called the son of man but he was not of the same genealogy as Adam ie: But He whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. (Hebrews 7:6,7). The phrase, whose descent is not counted from them refers to the fact that Melchisedec was not descended from the SONS OF LEVI. This says nothing about Jesus not coming from Abraham or Adam. Why do you think Luke spends so much time giving us the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's line in Luke 3? Read Heb. 2:16 again. Jesus took on him the SEED OF ABRAHAM. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but HE TOOK ON HIM THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16-18 KJV) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel. (2 Timothy 2:8 KJV) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:3-4 KJV) Judy wrote: I do deny that Jesus Christ was of the same genetical seed as Adam, Abraham, and David. Scripture reveals that he is the King of Salem Melchizidec to whom Abraham gave a tithe. Hebrews 7:16 tells us he as our Great High Priest is not made after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life. Read the verse just BEFORE this one. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the SIMILITUDE of Melchisedec there ariseth ANOTHER priest. (Hebrews 7:15 KJV) The Scriptures do NOT teach that Melchisedec and Jesus were the same person. Melchisedec was a type of Christ, much like Joseph was, and much like the passover lamb was. Rather than belabor our discussion, please just look at the following verse. Doesn't it prove it once and for all that Jesus had the same blood as the rest of humanity? Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the SAME. (Hebrews 2:14 KJV) And the following verses give the context: For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:16-18 KJV) 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.
