Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
In a message dated 6/28/2004 4:48:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: think it would depend on whether or not you were saved before you were six. I became a new creature at 47. How did that happen? You haven't been a Christian that long. Give us the whole story, young man. Seriously. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
In a message dated 6/28/2004 3:51:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God Himself says that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children unto the 4th and sometimes the 10th generation. When did His personality change? JudyT Actually, the person of God never changes but His administration does. Obviously. For example -- the fact that His original covenant is replaced by a new covenants has everything to do with administration and nothing to do with the existence and/or personality of God. I don't think the word "visit" has the meaning you have in mind, but be that as it may, this is an administrative decision. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
DAVEH: Thank you for your below response, Slade. However, would you be so kind as to explain what there is in the Bible that makes you think there is not a pre-mortal existence of our spirits? IOW.are there any passages that lead you to think our spirits did not exist prior to our birth? Slade Henson wrote: DAVEH: From my (LDS) perspective, I believe stories to which you are referring could be true (midrash (parable) stories of souls speaking with God before they're implanted in a body on earth) And, they would be further evidence of a pre-mortal existence of our spirits. I do not subscribe to that particular belief. I do not think the passage or any other OT/NT passage supports the belief either. DAVEH: If Jesus could pre-exist, why not others? Jer 1:4-5 seems evidential. And, Job (38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and sons of God pre-existing. I presume most Protestants believe angels pre-existed. Of course, Paul (Eph 1:4-5) suggests our pre-mortal existence as well. So Slade..Is there anything in the Bible the precludes man's pre-mortal existence in the form of spirits? I believe Jesus preexists because He is the Holy One of Israel. All other passages you provide simply shows the sheer knowledge of God because He is able to see the future with perfect clarity. I believe these passages dictate this innate ability of YHVH. For Example, Jeremiah 1:4-5 speaks of God's foreknowledge.Job 38:4-7 is a set of rhetorical questions whose answers so clear that many miss them. Ephesians 1:4-5, again, speaks of God's foreknowledge. DAVEH: From that specific passage alone. What else do you think it could infer? Please explain how you came to that conclusion. I cannot see it. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Saturday, 26 June, 2004 23:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request DAVEH: SladeI've always viewed this passage as good evidence the Jews at the time of Jesus believed in an existence before birth. How do you view the underlying message of this passage? Slade Henson wrote: As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) -- slade -- ~~~ 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] Prayer Request
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Sorry to jump into your discussion, DaveH, DAVEH: No problem, Perry. I appreciate your viewpoint and comments. but I think something important needs to be pointed out with respect to the LDS view of Angels, Jesus, and humans. DAVEH wrote: If Jesus could pre-exist, why not others? Jer 1:4-5 seems evidential. And, Job (38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and sons of God pre-existing. I presume most Protestants believe angels pre-existed. Of course, Paul (Eph 1:4-5) suggests our pre-mortal existence as well. So Slade..Is there anything in the Bible the precludes man's pre-mortal existence in the form of spirits? Christians do not consider Angels, Jesus, or humans to be of the same nature, or "stuff". We do not consider Jesus to be our literal spirit brother in the pre-existence, or to be the brother of the fallen angel Lucifer, as the LDS do. DAVEH: I understand that, and am not expecting you to believe as I do. I'm trying to figure out why you believe as you do. (I know.you've heard that before, but please bear with me on this for a bit.) We consider Jesus to be one person of the Trinity, all of which are God. Angels are created beings distinct in nature from humans. They most likely pre-existed human creation, and humans are a unique creation apart from angels. Humans did not pre-exist their birth as spirits. DAVEH: That is the part that I'm trying to find out about your (and Slade's) belief. What is it that makes you think spirits could not have been created prior to mortality? There must be some passages in the Bible that lead you to that conclusion? Or.is it merely traditional Protestant dogma that has instilled such a belief? In LDS lore there seems to be only one type of being, which during it's existence may progress through several stages...spirit, angel, man, and god (I believe you call this "eternal progression"). This is like insect progression...egg, larva, pupa, and adult. The LDS jesus is not distinct in the LDS model. He is just another insect making his eternal march toward LDS godhood. DAVEH: You are mixing some truths as to what I believe with some inaccuracies. Your assumption that Jesus is not distinct is incorrect. Jesus was not progressing toward Godhood.he was God prior to his mortal life. However, he consisted of only spirit form prior to his birth. After his resurrection, he then consisted of a spirit body clothed with an exalted physical body of flesh and bone. >From what I've learned on TT, I assume that is not too much different than what you might believe? BTW Perry..I have not forgotten our previous quick and dead discussion. I've done a little studying of it, but need to do much more. It really is a topic that interests me, and I do intend to get back to it as I have time. I just don't feel knowledgeable at this point to discuss it much. Perry Sort of like insects...eggs, larvae, pupae, then adult insects. 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.
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Jonathan; Your analysis below is an ad hominem attack; you don't know me nor do you understand a thing I have said in the right context so how are you qualified to evaluate the condition of my heart before God? Read my post again and show me where I said Jenna (or our son-in-law) had "deep rooted" bitterness. You need to stop listening to the accuser and pray about some of these things before shooting from the hip. From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What disgusts me is your post below. To even imply or insinuate that the leukemia of this poor little girl is a result of some sin in your son-in-law is absolutely baseless. You might as well put a bullet through his head. Don’t you think he is going through enough right now? Don’t you know that he would give his very life to heal his daughter? How blind can you be to the horrors of your teaching? A 4 year old child has deep rooted bitterness? I thought that “Jenna is a sweet and loving child who ppl are drawn to because of her personality.” You are sick. I accept that my posts may not be the vehicle God will use to help you to see your errors. You have never accepted rebuke from anyone on TT; your heart is hard. Regardless of your wacked theology, God in His mercy will never leave you or forsake you. May He soften your heart and allow you to see His truth. May He help me love you, to submit my anger at your teachings to Him. And most importantly, may He shower Jenna with all the blessings in Christ Jesus.
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>For those interested in getting a balanced view on Judy's mentor Henry Wright (the pastor who wrote The More Excellent Way) please see the following link: http://www.bible.org/docs/br/bookreview-01.htm judyt: Please folks please do not go to this link for any kind of balanced view the fellow who wrote this review is J. Hampton Keathley IV, Th.M. Hampton Keathley IV graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1995 with the Th.M. He is co-founder of bible.org and serves as webmaster and technical director for the web site. To put it simply he keeps us up and running and fixes things when they break. Hampton is also President of Galaxie Software and contributes studies to the web site. His Father J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M. Hampton Keathley III went home to be with the Lord August 29th, 2002 after a year long battle with cancer. He was a 1966 graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a former pastor of 28 years. Hampton wrote for the Foundation and taught New Testament Greek at Moody Northwest (an extension of Moody Bible Institute) in Spokane, Washington. Enough said... This man is no more objective than your other websites Jonathan. Where do you find these people?
Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Ties
In a message dated 6/27/2004 11:18:26 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hereâs a question for you all. Do you believe there are such things a âsoul tiesâ? If so, what are they, and how do they work? Izzy Great question. I'm anxious to hear the viewpoints. Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Sorry to jump into your discussion, DaveH, but I think something important needs to be pointed out with respect to the LDS view of Angels, Jesus, and humans. DAVEH wrote: If Jesus could pre-exist, why not others? Jer 1:4-5 seems evidential. And, Job (38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and sons of God pre-existing. I presume most Protestants believe angels pre-existed. Of course, Paul (Eph 1:4-5) suggests our pre-mortal existence as well. So Slade..Is there anything in the Bible the precludes man's pre-mortal existence in the form of spirits? Christians do not consider Angels, Jesus, or humans to be of the same nature, or "stuff". We do not consider Jesus to be our literal spirit brother in the pre-existence, or to be the brother of the fallen angel Lucifer, as the LDS do. We consider Jesus to be one person of the Trinity, all of which are God. Angels are created beings distinct in nature from humans. They most likely pre-existed human creation, and humans are a unique creation apart from angels. Humans did not pre-exist their birth as spirits. In LDS lore there seems to be only one type of being, which during it's existence may progress through several stages...spirit, angel, man, and god (I believe you call this "eternal progression"). This is like insect progression...egg, larva, pupa, and adult. The LDS jesus is not distinct in the LDS model. He is just another insect making his eternal march toward LDS godhood. Perry Sort of like insects...eggs, larvae, pupae, then adult insects. 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.
[TruthTalk] Prayer Request
I didn't make any rule about the 'curse lighting' Terry but it is in God's Word. In the exceptions you give it was Pharoah who hardened his own heart (I think it was 8 times) before God finally hardened it for good before which he had plenty of opportunities to go the other way. Nebuchadnessar was a pagan king who lifted himself up in pride. Neither were part of God's covenant people. In Joseph's case it was the jealousy of his own brothers that cause his stress and what they meant for evil God turned around and used for good. I know Calvins theology ascribes everything (both good and evil) to God making him responsible for both and Calvinism is the basis for what they call the Reformed faith. I've studied this for a long time and I don't see God making people sick for his glory ever. The scriptures clearly teach that sick people are oppressed by the devil. God is glorified when they are made well by His Word. From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You might want to consider, Judy, that there are exceptions to the rule. Sickness came about because of sin, and what you say above is almost always true, but there are instances where God used an individual for His own purposes. He hardened pharoah's heart. He made Nebuchadnessar to eat grass like a cow, He had Joseph put into captivity for years, all for His own purpose. I suggest that He did the same with this blind man. In fact, from what Jesus said, I think there can be no doubt about it. He was used to glorify his creator, and was rewarded by being given his sight. After being blind from birth, I am sure he was more thankful to God for his sight than most of us are.Terry Judy Taylor wrote:Can you show me in the scriptures why this belief is aberrant Lance? Are you one of those who believe the disciples asking this question were 'ignorant' and didn't know any better? Arn't you the one who keeps saying that I an the victim of enlightenment thinking? God Himself says that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children unto the 4th and sometimes the 10th generation. When did His personality change? I think it much sadder to be deceived by doctrines that do not conform one to godliness.
RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Judy, 2 + 2 will always equal 4 whether you believe it or not. You have been caught misusing the Bible with your argument from silence whether you believe it or not. It is all there for everyone to read. You hook it up with a grievous view on illness. What disgusts me is your post below. To even imply or insinuate that the leukemia of this poor little girl is a result of some sin in your son-in-law is absolutely baseless. You might as well put a bullet through his head. Don’t you think he is going through enough right now? Don’t you know that he would give his very life to heal his daughter? How blind can you be to the horrors of your teaching? A 4 year old child has deep rooted bitterness? I thought that “Jenna is a sweet and loving child who ppl are drawn to because of her personality.” You are sick. I accept that my posts may not be the vehicle God will use to help you to see your errors. You have never accepted rebuke from anyone on TT; your heart is hard. Regardless of your wacked theology, God in His mercy will never leave you or forsake you. May He soften your heart and allow you to see His truth. May He help me love you, to submit my anger at your teachings to Him. And most importantly, may He shower Jenna with all the blessings in Christ Jesus. For those interested in getting a balanced view on Judy’s mentor Henry Wright (the pastor who wrote “The More Excellent Way”) please see the following link: http://www.bible.org/docs/br/bookreview-01.htm For the record the book “Toxic Emotions” mentioned below is not half bad. I have only scanned it in passing but I did not notice anything like what Judy teaches about ancestral sin in it. I will give it a closer look this week to confirm this. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Good points Izzy, And even the medical community are admitting that this is so. I just purchased a book called "Toxic Emotions" by Dr. Don Colbert and in it he is going over much of what we are talking about. I see it in my family - in ancestors, us, and our own children; it makes me every more grateful for the cross and the cleansing blood of Calvary. There is a pastor I know of in Georgia who ministers in the light of this wisdom and many are healed from what is considered incurable chronic disease. He has written a book called "The More Excellent Way" and in his experience leukemia is tied to "deep rooted bitterness coming from unresolved rejection by a father quote "I have always found a breach between the person who has that disease and their father. I've never found a mother involved in the breach; abandonment by a father, literally or emotionally, is also implicated" Our son-in-law is a good father, but he came out of a shocking situation although he is an Annapolis graduate and a high achiever in everything he puts his hand to. The chickens have a way of coming home to roost. If we, as a family, can accept the truth and deal with it, there will be healing of all breaches and perfect peace in the Lord. IMO much of what we call peace today falls short. Thanks for this Izzy, i jt From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Interesting websites, and interesting subject, Jonathan. But don’t you think that generational “curses” (such as genetic “imprinting” of sinful behavior, for lack of a better way to put it) can be passed down from generation to generation? I believe you have children, and there is no bigger convincer of the power of genetics than having your own children! I recently heard someone on TV say (re: a study on twins) that we are 50% formed by our genes, and 50% by environment. Certainly the Blood of Christ redeems us from having to sin, but we can still have a more of a disposition towards it in the flesh, I think, if it is in our generational lineage. Yet I agree with you that we can make generational sin a bigger bugaboo than it really is, once we are Believers. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Hi Slade, If you read what Judy says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. Judy is an expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean, possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into position
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:35:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Izzy:I saw that same show (twins). I believe that 'who we are at 6 is who we are at 60. Anyone who's know anyone for decades will probably support my 'sense' of this observation.I believe this to be as true of Christians as non-christians. ST: just a close friendship. "who we are at 6 is who we are at 60." -- in what ways? Overtly and personality wise, I am nothing like I was in my early days. At least. this is what i suppose. J I think it would depend on whether or not you were saved before you were six. I became a new creature at 47. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
DAVEH: From my (LDS) perspective, I believe stories to which you are referring could be true (midrash (parable) stories of souls speaking with God before they're implanted in a body on earth) And, they would be further evidence of a pre-mortal existence of our spirits. I do not subscribe to that particular belief. I do not think the passage or any other OT/NT passage supports the belief either. DAVEH: If Jesus could pre-exist, why not others? Jer 1:4-5 seems evidential. And, Job (38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and sons of God pre-existing. I presume most Protestants believe angels pre-existed. Of course, Paul (Eph 1:4-5) suggests our pre-mortal existence as well. So Slade..Is there anything in the Bible the precludes man's pre-mortal existence in the form of spirits? I believe Jesus preexists because He is the Holy One of Israel. All other passages you provide simply shows the sheer knowledge of God because He is able to see the future with perfect clarity. I believe these passages dictate this innate ability of YHVH. For Example, Jeremiah 1:4-5 speaks of God's foreknowledge.Job 38:4-7 is a set of rhetorical questions whose answers so clear that many miss them. Ephesians 1:4-5, again, speaks of God's foreknowledge. DAVEH: From that specific passage alone. What else do you think it could infer? Please explain how you came to that conclusion. I cannot see it. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Saturday, 26 June, 2004 23:10To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer RequestDAVEH: SladeI've always viewed this passage as good evidence the Jews at the time of Jesus believed in an existence before birth. How do you view the underlying message of this passage? Slade Henson wrote: As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:36:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ALL SCRIPTURE (including Psalms and Proverbs) is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" Slightly off the subject: Certainly, all scripture is given by inspiration, but not all scripture contains divine truth. Truth and revelation are two different things , as I see it. There seems to be at least three sources of information in the biblical message, God, man and the evil one (Satan). Sometimes , this is important to note. . Back to the subject --- I am not so sure that "what the scripture says is what the scripture says" is a plausible consideration if that means we're are not to consider context (textual and historical/cultural), ancient language syntax with its locations and conjugations and the like. There are many considerations for those who read an ancient text translated into another language.God's promise of divine help (I Co 2) is not a promise of divine inspiration, rather it is a promise of providential assistance - or God would have need to help one person one time and that would be the end of the matter. The way I understand biblical interpretation (I Co 2) in the light of "truth" is this -- that God can take a single passage of scripture, a single sentence or thought, and teach a thousand lessons! I think that is the test of divinity as claimed in the Message.and it is truly remarkable. While we are all looking for the (single) truth, God is teaching the entire encampment and doing so one person at a time. Each grows at a different rate, each has a different need, and God satisfies all that diversity often with a single statement. That's pretty neat. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Judy Taylor wrote: Can you show me in the scriptures why this belief is aberrant Lance? Are you one of those who believe the disciples asking this question were 'ignorant' and didn't know any better? Arn't you the one who keeps saying that I an the victim of enlightenment thinking? God Himself says that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children unto the 4th and sometimes the 10th generation. When did His personality change? I think it much sadder to be deceived by doctrines that do not conform one to godliness. You might want to consider, Judy, that there are exceptions to the rule. Sickness came about because of sin, and what you say above is almost always true, but there are instances where God used an individual for His own purposes. He hardened pharoah's heart. He made Nebuchadnessar to eat grass like a cow, He had Joseph put into captivity for years, all for His own purpose. I suggest that He did the same with this blind man. In fact, from what Jesus said, I think there can be no doubt about it. He was used to glorify his creator, and was rewarded by being given his sight. After being blind from birth, I am sure he was more thankful to God for his sight than most of us are. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:35:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Izzy:I saw that same show (twins). I believe that 'who we are at 6 is who we are at 60. Anyone who's know anyone for decades will probably support my 'sense' of this observation.I believe this to be as true of Christians as non-christians. ST: just a close friendship. "who we are at 6 is who we are at 60." -- in what ways? Overtly and personality wise, I am nothing like I was in my early days. At least. this is what i suppose. J
[TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Can you show me in the scriptures why this belief is aberrant Lance? Are you one of those who believe the disciples asking this question were 'ignorant' and didn't know any better? Arn't you the one who keeps saying that I an the victim of enlightenment thinking? God Himself says that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children unto the 4th and sometimes the 10th generation. When did His personality change? I think it much sadder to be deceived by doctrines that do not conform one to godliness. From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy: Sad to observe that you actually believe this. How utterly aberrant. From: Judy Taylor Hi Slade: Thank you for posting this scripture. I know a lot of people interpret Jesus' response to the disciples query to mean or to prove that sin and this man's blindness are unrelated. However, the scriptures teach that the "curse causeless does not light" (Prov 26:2) so there was definitely a cause even though Jesus did not choose to discuss it right then. It could have been grandparents, ggrandparents or gggrandparents. Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with .. judyt From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, 25 June, 2004 09:11To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request I have no idea Chris; our family are believers who are working through our issues also. However, we do know where to go for help in time of need and we are grateful for those willing to encourage and pray.
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Not when neither of us were even saying what Jonathan came up with - I believe he has conceded this point jt From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Terry: Even if you didn't, do you agreewith Jonathan's point? From: Terry Clifton Jonathan Hughes wrote:This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Please Jonathan, tell me when I concluded that, and what my exact words were. I do not recall making any such statement as that in bold type that you have attributed to me.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
In a message dated 6/28/2004 3:03:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Though I cannot say that I have not been guilty of doing exactly that, the idea does not sit well with me. There are people who contend that it is a sin to bet on a football game because the soldiers cast lots for Jesus' garments when He was nailed to the cross, but I don't see the connection and do not subscribe to that kind of thinking. There are others who feel that because drunkenness is a sin, that drinking a beer must be a sin. I do not agree with them either. The church of Christ seems to be a prime example of what you are talking about if I understand you correctly. Their refusal to use musical instruments to accompany hymns, is supposedly because there is no record that the early church used instruments. These things may not be just what you are speaking of, but they seem related to me. Hope this answers your question. Terry Terry, my recent post on the silence of the scriptures and my upbring, is actually a discussion of the Stone-Campebell Movement's position on silence of scripture -- but more specifically, a discussion of how the Church of christ (notice large "c" and small) view the subject. I ministered in that fellowship for years and that post is their doctrinal defense of such thinking. One of our more free thinking leaders (a Carl Ketcherside) once said, "All that the silence of the scriptures proves is that the scriptures are silent on that subject ." John D
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Jonathan Hughes wrote: Hi Terry, This aside, what do you think of the content of my post? Do you think using ‘arguments from silence’ is a responsible way of interpreting the Bible? Jonathan Though I cannot say that I have not been guilty of doing exactly that, the idea does not sit well with me. There are people who contend that it is a sin to bet on a football game because the soldiers cast lots for Jesus' garments when He was nailed to the cross, but I don't see the connection and do not subscribe to that kind of thinking. There are others who feel that because drunkenness is a sin, that drinking a beer must be a sin. I do not agree with them either. The church of Christ seems to be a prime example of what you are talking about if I understand you correctly. Their refusal to use musical instruments to accompany hymns, is supposedly because there is no record that the early church used instruments. These things may not be just what you are speaking of, but they seem related to me. Hope this answers your question. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
I add my amen to this . As for Daivd M-- he is currently slugging it out with the tough guy Christian club on another channel. I am sure he is keeping in touch. John In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:34:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A 'must-read' post for all of us. This should include the now absent David Miller. - Original Message - From: Jonathan Hughes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 27, 2004 22:42 Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Hi Slade, If you read what Judy says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. Judy is an expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean, possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into positions such as this one. Here is what is done: 1) Choose a passage that is completely out of context to the one in question. We will then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret it. In this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs. Now Proverbs is a collection of sayings that can lead one to wisdom. It is not a doctrine manual. We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles that demonstrate wise living. People often use the book of Psalms to do this type of interpretation as well. So we take a wise saying and then turn it into a doctrine (i.e. âthe scriptures teachâ). Now that we have the Bible on our side we go in for the next strike. 2) If the plain meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to adjust it, to make it say something it doesnât or at the very least to make explicit what we feel is implicit. A favourite way of doing this is by using the âargument from silenceâ technique. That means that if something is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should have been and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding doctrine. So if Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or great-grandparents than we can just add them in as if He meant to. This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Nothing of the such is taught in scripture in an explicit way. The only way to make it fit is to do so implicitly. It is a sneaky way of taking our beliefs (be they valid or invalid) and putting them into the text in order to justify what we already believe. Let it be noted that all of us are guilty of doing this at one point or another, including myself. 3) Now that we have added our argument from silence to our passage and no one has objected so far we can continue to the third strike. Judy is aware that the orthodox rendering of this passage âprove[s] that sin and this manâs blindness are unrelated.â However, due to her own beliefs on generational curses (usually found in the charismatic/Pentecostal strains of evangelicalism) the passage cannot mean what is plainly says. The third strike builds on the first two by now presenting an alternative meaning to the text. It must be referring to something different which is why Judy changes it to mean that âJesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with.â The plain meaning of course is that sin was not involved; rather it was âthat the works of God might be revealed in him.â It is all nice and compact. We have started with scripture, moved to something that sounds logical (the argument from silence) and then provided an alternative reading that supports our beliefs prior to coming to the passage. None of us here are perfect interpreters (including myself). We all need to be on the watch for when scripture is mishandled. If any are interested in learning more about generational sin and why I believe Judyâs beliefs are not only Biblically wrong but hurtful please see the links below: http://www.tmch.net/gensin.htm http://www.voiceofonecrying.com/generational_sins_or_god.htm http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_curses.html http://www.geocities.com/Bob_Hunter/csch6.htm http://www.nireland.com/evangelicaltruth/generationalcurses.htm http://www.answers2pra
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
No Lance, I do not. Nor do I disagree. If I had an opinion, I would not have asked others to help me understand. All I was able to point out was possibilities. I would like to have an opinion, but I do not have enough information to form one on this subject. Even in my black and white world, there are gray areas. Terry Lance Muir wrote: Terry:Even if you didn't, do you agreewith Jonathan's point? - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 27, 2004 23:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Jonathan Hughes wrote: This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Please Jonathan, tell me when I concluded that, and what my exact words were. I do not recall making any such statement as that in bold type that you have attributed to me. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:34:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me try that again If all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then all C's are A's... right? This was not true the last time I spoke with my ex-wife. But, I am not sure what the conclusion of that discussion was. Maybe it had something to do with outer Mongolia. Just ignore me. I haven't bathed yet. JD
Re: FW: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:33:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This aside, what do you think of the content of my post? Do you think using âarguments from silenceâ is a responsible way of interpreting the Bible? I was raised in a fellowship that actually saw doctrinal statement in the "silence of the scriptures." The reasoning was rather simple and goes something like this: if the Bible is the Word of God, God being the author must have completed His work of divine instruction in that book. That being true, He said all that He intended to say and left off all that He intended to omit. His explicate instruction is no more important than His silence, being that the biblical message is the full and complete will of God on any subject. When we add to the "silent instruction of the Lord," we assert that His revealtion is not complete, that He did not say all that He intended to say. Hence, we have the admonition in Rev. 22:18, 19 not to detract from the message (respect what has been divinely given) nor to add that which is not found (respect silence of divine revelation). The fact that this revelatory instruction (Rev 22:18,19) is found in the last verses of the entire Bible is evidence that the warning to include and revere the written message and God's silence should be extended to all 66 books. Kind of neat, uh? John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Judy:Sad to observe that you actually believe this. How utterly aberrant. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 27, 2004 16:03 Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request Hi Slade: Thank you for posting this scripture. I know a lot of people interpret Jesus' response to the disciples query to mean or to prove that sin and this man's blindness are unrelated. However, the scriptures teach that the "curse causeless does not light" (Prov 26:2) so there was definitely a cause even though Jesus did not choose to discuss it right then. It could have been grandparents, ggrandparents or gggrandparents. Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with .. judyt From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, 25 June, 2004 09:11To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request I have no idea Chris; our family are believers who are working through our issues also. However, we do know where to go for help in time of need and we are grateful for those willing to encourage and pray.
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Good points Izzy, And even the medical community are admitting that this is so. I just purchased a book called "Toxic Emotions" by Dr. Don Colbert and in it he is going over much of what we are talking about. I see it in my family - in ancestors, us, and our own children; it makes me every more grateful for the cross and the cleansing blood of Calvary. There is a pastor I know of in Georgia who ministers in the light of this wisdom and many are healed from what is considered incurable chronic disease. He has written a book called "The More Excellent Way" and in his experience leukemia is tied to "deep rooted bitterness coming from unresolved rejection by a father quote "I have always found a breach between the person who has that disease and their father. I've never found a mother involved in the breach; abandonment by a father, literally or emotionally, is also implicated" Our son-in-law is a good father, but he came out of a shocking situation although he is an Annapolis graduate and a high achiever in everything he puts his hand to. The chickens have a way of coming home to roost. If we, as a family, can accept the truth and deal with it, there will be healing of all breaches and perfect peace in the Lord. IMO much of what we call peace today falls short. Thanks for this Izzy, i jt From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Interesting websites, and interesting subject, Jonathan. But don’t you think that generational “curses” (such as genetic “imprinting” of sinful behavior, for lack of a better way to put it) can be passed down from generation to generation? I believe you have children, and there is no bigger convincer of the power of genetics than having your own children! I recently heard someone on TV say (re: a study on twins) that we are 50% formed by our genes, and 50% by environment. Certainly the Blood of Christ redeems us from having to sin, but we can still have a more of a disposition towards it in the flesh, I think, if it is in our generational lineage. Yet I agree with you that we can make generational sin a bigger bugaboo than it really is, once we are Believers. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:43 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Hi Slade, If you read what Judy says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. Judy is an expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean, possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into positions such as this one. Here is what is done: 1) Choose a passage that is completely out of context to the one in question. We will then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret it. In this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs. Now Proverbs is a collection of sayings that can lead one to wisdom. It is not a doctrine manual. We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles that demonstrate wise living. People often use the book of Psalms to do this type of interpretation as well. So we take a wise saying and then turn it into a doctrine (i.e. “the scriptures teach”). Now that we have the Bible on our side we go in for the next strike. 2) If the plain meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to adjust it, to make it say something it doesn’t or at the very least to make explicit what we feel is implicit. A favourite way of doing this is by using the ‘argument from silence’ technique. That means that if something is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should have been and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding doctrine. So if Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or great-grandparents than we can just add them in as if He meant to. This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Nothing of the such is taught in scripture in an explicit way. The only way to make it fit is to do so implicitly. It is a sneaky way of taking our beliefs (be they valid or invalid) and putting them into the text in order to justify what we already believe. Let it be n
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Izzy:I saw that same show (twins). I believe that 'who we are at 6 is who we are at 60. Anyone who's know anyone for decades will probably support my 'sense' of this observation.I believe this to be as true of Christians as non-christians. ST: just a close friendship. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 28, 2004 00:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Interesting websites, and interesting subject, Jonathan. But dont you think that generational curses (such as genetic imprinting of sinful behavior, for lack of a better way to put it) can be passed down from generation to generation? I believe you have children, and there is no bigger convincer of the power of genetics than having your own children! I recently heard someone on TV say (re: a study on twins) that we are 50% formed by our genes, and 50% by environment. Certainly the Blood of Christ redeems us from having to sin, but we can still have a more of a disposition towards it in the flesh, I think, if it is in our generational lineage. Yet I agree with you that we can make generational sin a bigger bugaboo than it really is, once we are Believers. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:43 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Hi Slade, If you read what Judy says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. Judy is an expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean, possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into positions such as this one. Here is what is done: 1) Choose a passage that is completely out of context to the one in question. We will then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret it. In this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs. Now Proverbs is a collection of sayings that can lead one to wisdom. It is not a doctrine manual. We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles that demonstrate wise living. People often use the book of Psalms to do this type of interpretation as well. So we take a wise saying and then turn it into a doctrine (i.e. the scriptures teach). Now that we have the Bible on our side we go in for the next strike. 2) If the plain meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to adjust it, to make it say something it doesnt or at the very least to make explicit what we feel is implicit. A favourite way of doing this is by using the argument from silence technique. That means that if something is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should have been and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding doctrine. So if Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or great-grandparents than we can just add them in as if He meant to. This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Nothing of the such is taught in scripture in an explicit way. The only way to make it fit is to do so implicitly. It is a sneaky way of taking our beliefs (be they valid or invalid) and putting them into the text in order to justify what we already believe. Let it be noted that all of us are guilty of doing this at one point or another, including myself. 3) Now that we have added our argument from silence to our passage and no one has objected so far we can continue to the third strike. Judy is aware that the orthodox rendering of this passage prove[s] that sin and this mans blindness are unrelated. However, due to her own beliefs on generational curses (usually found in the charismatic/Pentecostal strains of evangelicalism) the passage cannot mean what is plainly says. The third strike builds on the first two by now presenting an alternative meaning to the text. It must be referring to something different which is why Judy changes it to mean that Jesus was wanting to focus on the wor
[TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hi Slade, If you read what Judy says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. judyt: Why would I want to do that Jonathan? Scripture says what it says. Why would I choose to take responsibility when it is unnecessary? Remember it is the nature of unregenerated flesh to take the easy way out - always. Jonathan: Judy is an expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean, possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into positions such as this one. Here is what is done: 1) Choose a passage that is completely out of context to the one in question. We will then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret it. In this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs. judyt: Jonathan sickness is never a blessing, it is a curse and the scripture from Proverbs is God's wisdom on the subject at hand. I am not making it say anything. It says what it says. If you don't understand it, pray and ask the Lord to teach you or leave it until some later time. If you want to reject it and stay where you are at. That's also an option. Jonathan: Now Proverbs is a collection of sayings that can lead one to wisdom. It is not a doctrine manual. We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles that demonstrate wise living. jt: Proverbs is the wisdom of God and ALL SCRIPTURE (including Psalms and Proverbs) is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" Jonathan: People often use the book of Psalms to do this type of interpretation as well. So we take a wise saying and then turn it into a doctrine (i.e. the scriptures teach). Now that we have the Bible on our side we go in for the next strike. judyt: Do we need to first run it by some smart men Jonathan? Jonathan: 2) If the plain meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to adjust it, to make it say something it doesn't or at the very least to make explicit what we feel is implicit. judyt: Your claim above is exactly what religious tradition has done through the years. When men went off into their own religious ways and no longer walked in the power of the cross - Jesus was not there to confirm His Word with signs following so they began to explain this part of scripture away ... selah! A favorite argument is "that died with the last apostle" Jonathan: A favourite way of doing this is by using the argument from silence technique. That means that if something is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should have been and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding doctrine. So if Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or great-grandparents than we can just add them in as if He meant to. judyt: I never ever use an argument from silence Jonathan (this is your assumption). There are always reasons (more than one) For any statement I make from scripture I have two or more witnesses. You never ask because you already assumethe above and are not interested. The link between sin and sickness is all over the Bible beginning in Genesis; why do you think Jesus told those he healed to "go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon them" His disciples were aware of this, their question in John 9 was not made from the standpoint of ignorance or superstition. Our generation is the one who needs to have their pipes cleaned. But then, if you want to stay sick and infirm just explain it all away. There is not much power of God evident today because we don't deal with sin so we hold the truth in unrighteousness. Jonathan: This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increaseit from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Nothing of the such is taught in scripture in an explicit way. The only way to make it fit is to do so implicitly. It is a sneaky way of taking our beliefs (be they valid or invalid) and putting them into the text in order to justify what we already believe. judyt: Neither Terri or I made any argument from silence concerning the above that I am aware of. I don't even believe what you have pronounced as coming from me. What I did say i
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
A 'must-read' post for all of us. This should include the now absent David Miller. - Original Message - From: Jonathan Hughes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 27, 2004 22:42 Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Hi Slade, If you read what Judy says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head. This is an excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it to. In other words we force our meaning on the text. Judy is an expert at this. Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious of doing this. Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean, possibly more so than anyone else on this forum. However, her refusal to look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into positions such as this one. Here is what is done: 1) Choose a passage that is completely out of context to the one in question. We will then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret it. In this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs. Now Proverbs is a collection of sayings that can lead one to wisdom. It is not a doctrine manual. We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles that demonstrate wise living. People often use the book of Psalms to do this type of interpretation as well. So we take a wise saying and then turn it into a doctrine (i.e. the scriptures teach). Now that we have the Bible on our side we go in for the next strike. 2) If the plain meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to adjust it, to make it say something it doesnt or at the very least to make explicit what we feel is implicit. A favourite way of doing this is by using the argument from silence technique. That means that if something is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should have been and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding doctrine. So if Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or great-grandparents than we can just add them in as if He meant to. This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Nothing of the such is taught in scripture in an explicit way. The only way to make it fit is to do so implicitly. It is a sneaky way of taking our beliefs (be they valid or invalid) and putting them into the text in order to justify what we already believe. Let it be noted that all of us are guilty of doing this at one point or another, including myself. 3) Now that we have added our argument from silence to our passage and no one has objected so far we can continue to the third strike. Judy is aware that the orthodox rendering of this passage prove[s] that sin and this mans blindness are unrelated. However, due to her own beliefs on generational curses (usually found in the charismatic/Pentecostal strains of evangelicalism) the passage cannot mean what is plainly says. The third strike builds on the first two by now presenting an alternative meaning to the text. It must be referring to something different which is why Judy changes it to mean that Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with. The plain meaning of course is that sin was not involved; rather it was that the works of God might be revealed in him. It is all nice and compact. We have started with scripture, moved to something that sounds logical (the argument from silence) and then provided an alternative reading that supports our beliefs prior to coming to the passage. None of us here are perfect interpreters (including myself). We all need to be on the watch for when scripture is mishandled. If any are interested in learning more about generational sin and why I believe Judys beliefs are not only Biblically wrong but hurtful please see the links below: http://www.tmch.net/gensin.htm http://www.voiceofonecrying.com/generational_sins_or_god.htm http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_curses.html http://www.geocities.com/Bob_Hunter/csch6.htm http://www.nireland.com/evangelicaltruth/generationalcurses.htm http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answers/deliverance/generational_curses.html Peace and joy, Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Slade Henson wrote: There are many midrash (parable) stories of souls speaking with God before they're implanted in a body on earth, but I've always understood those stories to tell a greater theological or moral story... but that the story was not factual. DAVEH: From my (LDS) perspective, I believe stories to which you are referring could be trueAnd, they would be further evidence of a pre-mortal existence of our spirits. I know of no one who dogmatically believes in the preexistence of the soul. >From what I understand, the only preexisting is the Holy One of Israel. DAVEH: If Jesus could pre-exist, why not others? Jer 1:4-5 seems evidential. And, Job (38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and sons of God pre-existing. I presume most Protestants believe angels pre-existed. Of course, Paul (Eph 1:4-5) suggests our pre-mortal existence as well. So Slade..Is there anything in the Bible the precludes man's pre-mortal existence in the form of spirits? Can I ask where you get the impression that Jewish sages in antiquity believed this? DAVEH: From that specific passage alone. What else do you think it could infer? This might be an interesting study. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Saturday, 26 June, 2004 23:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request DAVEH: SladeI've always viewed this passage as good evidence the Jews at the time of Jesus believed in an existence before birth. How do you view the underlying message of this passage? Slade Henson wrote: As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) -- slade -- ~~~ 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] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Hi Terry, Your exact words were: Bill reopened this can of worms for me a couple of days back. Judy responded to it. Both made some points, some good points, yet I was left wondering, as I have been for a long time, as to just what God expects of His people in time of war. Jesus and Peter and Paul all dealt with military men . A couple of centurions and a prison guard as I remember. None of them were told to give up their careers as a condition of salvation, so it would seem that there is a place for Christians in the military. What I attributed to you was the use of the ‘argument from silence’ technique. What I tacked on to the end of my sentence was to illustrate how people take an ‘argument from silence’ and extrapolate it; I no longer had you in mind. My desire was to do a difficult thing: to use examples from this forum and to show the entire process that happens when this type of interpretation is used. By showing the entire process I was hoping to take some heat away from the actual examples so that people did not feel attacked. Consider my post a failure at this point. I can see how you may be thinking that I am making my own ‘argument from silence’ here. Fair enough. This aside, what do you think of the content of my post? Do you think using ‘arguments from silence’ is a responsible way of interpreting the Bible? Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Jonathan Hughes wrote: This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Please Jonathan, tell me when I concluded that, and what my exact words were. I do not recall making any such statement as that in bold type that you have attributed to me. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
Let me try that again If all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then all C's are A's... right?
RE: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request
This, too, is a minor point of difference. While I agree with Scripture that an "UNdeserved curse goes NOwhere," I do not necessarily believe the exact opposite occurs every time. If so, none of us would exist this very day. I trust the words of Yeshua who said that the man's plight was not the direct result of anyone's sin (i.e., parents/fathers equals forbearers or forefathers in general). Let me ask you a question Judy If all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then all A's are C's... right? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 27 June, 2004 16:03To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request Hi Slade: Thank you for posting this scripture. I know a lot of people interpret Jesus' response to the disciples query to mean or to prove that sin and this man's blindness are unrelated. However, the scriptures teach that the "curse causeless does not light" (Prov 26:2) so there was definitely a cause even though Jesus did not choose to discuss it right then. It could have been grandparents, ggrandparents or gggrandparents. Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with .. judyt From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) -- slade
FW: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
My apologies to anyone that receives this twice. It has been an hour and it doesn’t seem to have gone through. Jonathan From: Jonathan Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:51 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Hi Terry, Your exact words were: Bill reopened this can of worms for me a couple of days back. Judy responded to it. Both made some points, some good points, yet I was left wondering, as I have been for a long time, as to just what God expects of His people in time of war. Jesus and Peter and Paul all dealt with military men . A couple of centurions and a prison guard as I remember. None of them were told to give up their careers as a condition of salvation, so it would seem that there is a place for Christians in the military. What I attributed to you was the use of the ‘argument from silence’ technique. What I tacked on to the end of my sentence was to illustrate how people take an ‘argument from silence’ and extrapolate it; I no longer had you in mind. My desire was to do a difficult thing: to use examples from this forum and to show the entire process that happens when this type of interpretation is used. By showing the entire process I was hoping to take some heat away from the actual examples so that people did not feel attacked. Consider my post a failure at this point. I can see how you may be thinking that I am making my own ‘argument from silence’ here. Fair enough. This aside, what do you think of the content of my post? Do you think using ‘arguments from silence’ is a responsible way of interpreting the Bible? Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Jonathan Hughes wrote: This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Please Jonathan, tell me when I concluded that, and what my exact words were. I do not recall making any such statement as that in bold type that you have attributed to me. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence
Izzy:An aside (I think) America was not, is not and, will never be a 'Christian' nation except in name only. Compare Muslim 'nations'. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 27, 2004 23:57 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence I wonder how many more Jews (and others) would have died if every Christian refused to fight for them. Certainly America would still be an English colony if some Christians had not fought for independence here. Izzy I wonder how many Jewish lives pacifism would have cost if every Christian in Germany would have taken Paul's words seriously and refused to fight in Hitler's army? Maybe when Paul said to Christians, "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world," he meant it. No, Judy, it was Christian militancy that cost the Jews "a lot of lives." Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence
Judyt:Amen on the 'hatred' observation. I do, however, believe that there exists genuine 'hatred' , in practice, between believing groups in America. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 27, 2004 17:03 Subject: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>jt: The devil ... has on occasion controlled men in positions of authority. Hitler is one example and the Jews pacifistic response to him cost them a lot of lives. I wonder how many Jewish lives pacifism would have cost if every Christian in Germany would have taken Paul's words seriously and refused to fight in Hitler's army? Maybe when Paul said to Christians, "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world," he meant it. No, Judy, it was Christian militancy that cost the Jews "a lot of lives." Bill jt: This would undoubtedly depend on how one defines the word "Christian" - which definition in the case of Germany of the 1930's could never have included the "fruit of the Spirit"; the country was primarily RC and Lutheran both of which "hated" the Jews. Only one kind of hatred has a part in the Kingdom of God which is "hatred of evil" judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:02 AMSubject: [TruthTalk] Christians and Violence It's not a viable option in the spiritual warfare. Do you have any examples of how it has helped in the world at large?The devil is pleased when we make our backs a broad road for him to walk on and he has on occasion controlled men in positions of authority. Hitler is one example and the Jews pacifistic response to him cost them a lot of lives. jt[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy:Pacifissism is a viable option.From: Judy Taylor Terry writes:Still, the real question has not been addressed. We know what happens when the Lord returns, but what do we do until then? Do we take our place and kill the enemy if that is what our government decides is right, or do we love our enemy and turn the other cheek? Does it make any difference if we are the agressor or if we act in self defense? Can we live to please God and men? Terry jt: We judge sin in ourselves and repent of it daily which is the process of sanctification and this will eventually purify our whole being, spirit, soul, and body. There were many, many Christians in the Navy while we were there, in fact, without the example of their godly behavior I might never have chosen to return. If our country had gone to war during those years we would have been involved. So long as we are not the aggressor I don't believe it wrong for our leaders to defend us. As for Iraq, I know there are those who do not agree but I see it as part of the "war on Terror" a war that still rages.There are Christian police officers who may some day have to shoot and prison guards who are also Christian. I've done temporary work and have been able to discern believers by their conduct in every place I've been sent to. They are not the majority but they are there as works in progress and this, IMO, is the way God would have it because these are His ambassadors. Just ordinary every day people. I don't think a true believer chooses violence but a man should defend his family and a decent leader defends his people. Grace and Peace,Judy
Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
Terry:Even if you didn't, do you agreewith Jonathan's point? - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 27, 2004 23:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin Jonathan Hughes wrote: This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture. Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique. If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice). Please Jonathan, tell me when I concluded that, and what my exact words were. I do not recall making any such statement as that in bold type that you have attributed to me.Terry
