Re: PROBABLE SPAM Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Well said Slade.Gnostic dualism(s) are present from time to time on TT. Your 'earthy' illustrations help to identify them. thanks, Lance - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 22:58 Subject: RE: PROBABLE SPAM Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Hello Terry. You and I hear different views from the same text. Both you and I realize this. I hold no animosity toward you for your views, and I am pleased to hear you dont hate me for my views either. This is good. This gives us the privilege to converse down other avenues some of which we will disagree and some we agree. In closing this discussion between you and me, I would like to explain the greatest reason we disagree. You compartmentalize Scripture into Old vs. New. You contrast what I cannot. This is like someone separating Golden Delicious and Macintosh, saying that both cannot be apples because one is Macintosh and the other Golden Delicious. I hope Ive made myself clear here without being vindictive or demeaning. This is not my intent. We have different worldviews and different mindsets. I know I can learn form your perspective because I have not fallen deeply into the Hellenistic perspective, so dualism is something I generally do not perceive (i.e., separation of thing spiritual and things physical). For another instance, you may be one who believes an aesthetic, otherworldly lifestyle is more spiritual than one that involves pleasure and enjoyment. I, on the other hand, believe the enjoyments of life (be it the wonderful taste of food or the pleasure of my wife) are all blessings from God and opportunities for me to bless God; to deny them is to snub Gods blessings. Spirituality to me involves dirty fingernails (if one enjoys gardening), whereas it may involve a very clean, starched white shirt for you. I look forward to continuing discussions with you. Have a blessed Sabbath and an enjoyable Sunday. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 4:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: PROBABLE SPAM Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? ShieldsFamily wrote: Thanks, Terry. Glad to hear you arent getting old AND grouchy. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? ShieldsFamily wrote: Terry, I would appreciate hearing your scriptural basis for your point of view rather than your apparent anger with those who have a different viewpoint, which they have respectfully presented along with their scriptural basis. Izzy No anger Iz. Just sadness. I don't know anything about Jeff. He may be just a little confused, or he may be as screwed up as they come. In any event, I wish him the best and hope someday he truly understands as well as he thinks he does. I have nothing but respect for Slade. I think that he is serious about what he believes, and I think he probably tries to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord. Yet I cannot respect what he is teaching. Anytime anyone says that it is Jesus plus Torah, they are teaching in error, what Paul calls false teachers, and false teaching hurts the cause of Christ, whether or not it is done in good faith.Can I prove this? I believe I can, but of course I am biased, so you must decide for yourself after considering what I offer.Let's start with something Slade and I recently discussed very briefly - the parables of the wineskin and the new patch. I think it is obvious that Jesus was speaking to people who were familiar with both wineskins and new wine, as well as old and new cloth. He was not teaching a class on how to age wine or how to repair garments. He was using these things because people knew about them and could relate to them. He said, using my own paraphrase, "You can't put new wine in an old stiff animal skin; one that is dried and cracked, because the new wine, as it ferments, will give off gas that will cause pressure that the old bag cannot withstand. It will burst if you try it. You will lose everything - the wine skin and the wine. If you have a new batch of wine, you put it in a new, strong, flexible wine skin that can handle the pressure". Then He said, " You don't take a new piece of cloth and use it to patch a hole in your clothing, (no Sanforizing in those days) because the new cloth will shrink and tear the old cloth where it is sewn together, and the hole will be larger than ever." What Jesus was telling the hearers, and us, is that you cannot add Jesus to the old covenant without losing everything.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Why not check out perichoresis site? Things can be read and heard. Following that 'one' could offer an informed opinion. (excluding Judy, of course as she has written off an Incarnational/Trinitarian understanding of God and His Gospel) PS-The Gospel of Grace is everywhere present in the 'older' Testament. Look at the paragraph preceding the decalogue. The sainted, much maligned, much missed Bill Taylor outlined all of this in some detail. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:55 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature All your new Kruger mentality gospel without repentance comments of late. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:17 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/19/2004 6:26:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I cant believe ityouve gone over to the dark side. What name do you give your new philosophy? Izzy Referencing what?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
1. Are you self-identifying? 2. If you truly think so then, I'd like very much hearing (reading) your clear explanation of 6-8 parables. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:52 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature BTW, Jonathan, I never said that a particular parable was the key to understanding the gospel. But JESUS said, in Mark 4: 11And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN." 13And He said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? If I may translate: The parables are the Gospel for Dummies who dont get it. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:13 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/19/2004 6:22:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greetings all, Just a quick note. The parable of the sower or any parable for that matter is NOT the key to understanding the gospel. The key to understanding the gospel is Jesus Christ Himself. We must always allow God to disclose Himself to us apart from our own bias. When we take a passage and thrust it out as our hermeneutic (especially for something as important as the gospel) we apply our own spin to it. If we allow God to disclose Himself to us, on His terms, we can be much more confident in what we are promoting. When one says Jesus Christ, one says God, one says humanity, and one says God and humanity together. Much is contained in that sentence. Much is contained in Jesus! By starting with Jesus, with who He was and is and then working out our doctrines (i.e. what the gospel is and how it is worked out in our lives) we become centered on Christ, our eyes correctly fixed on who matters (1 Cor 2:2, Heb 12:2). To sum up, when we start with a doctrine (a parable, a verse, a passage) and use it to interpret the rest of what we believe we have created our own faith. If we start with Jesus, and who He is, and interpret our doctrines through Him then you are on safe ground (for the reason that it is not your ground; it is holy ground). The word (scripture) must always be subservient to the Word (Christ). To switch these around is to fall into error. Christians need to be constantly reminded that the fullest source of revelation from God to us has not been the Bible, but rather Himself in the Person of His Son (Col 1:15-20). To Christ be the glory. Amen. Jonathan This paragraph is just great. First century Christians had no choice but to start with Jesus since the biblical message was not even close to being what it is today. That last sentence really gets to the heart of the discussion. John
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Please (duh) tell me your meaning. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:44 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance you are stuck in the earthly time warp. God is not. (duh) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:35 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Jt:Will you then explain your understanding of my three illustrations? 1. Cosmos (not eternal) 'New' 2. Incarnation (not eternal) 'New' 3. Humanity (Christ) ascended to the right hand of the Father (not eternal) 'New' - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 08:47 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Wrong, God does not change and neither does His Word but then you don't believe His Word, you would rather rest your faith in the words of theologians who have a "broad" way to heaven. Since God is the Source, the cosmos is not new to Him, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world is not new, and there will be no glorified flesh in heaven .. becauseno flesh gets to glory in His presence. You may have a dynamic understanding Lance but it is not from God. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law
Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit?
Speaking for myself (Lance) I often find it difficult to believe (allowing for my last post to you) that you truly don't understand as much as you indicate through your questions. You reflect a level of 'puzzlement' that mystifies. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:38 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Jonathan, Good to hear from you my friend. I am not taking the time to research your references. However I think I understand what you are saying. I think we are body/soul/spirit just as God as Father/Son/HolySpirit. Three in one. Not three different elements. What is your understanding, if there is no such thing as soul or spirit? Izzy PS Why do you always have to answer for Lance? Cat got his tongue? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:44 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Hi Izzy, Let me jump in here. One thing we always have to be careful of is our blind acceptance of some of our definitions. The soul, or spirit is one of these. When the New Testament writers were writing the NT they had two choices for describing the spiritual: they could either make up new names or use old names, already commonly accepted but with a spin that would set them apart. They chose the second. The concept of soul or spirit that you and Judy have comes completely from Greek philosophy. Whenever you see the word soul or spirit in the Bible you automatically use a skewed definition that is clearly opposite from actual scripture. It is not rooted in scripture at all. In other words, just because Judy gives a verse that uses the word soul or spirit does not in any way prove that they are actual entities separated from the rest of who we are. This is completely opposite of the Hebrew revelation from the Old Testament and leads one into Gnosticism as we can easily see in Judys writings (Gnosticism held that human beings consist of flesh, soul, and spirit (the divine spark), and that humanity is divided into classes representing each of these elements. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0821080.html). We must always be on the lookout for dualisms that are not present. Please see the links below for some more detailed information and word studies. http://www.cresourcei.org/bodysoul.html http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Lance, Im not following your logic. Let me spell it out, since you have not. Do you consider a soul to be a philosophy? Do you consider a spirit to be a poor exegesis? What are you saying they are? And how do you explain away the scriptural references to them? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Linda:I do for the reasons cited:soul (philsophical), spirit (poor exegesis). Judy's is a common misapprehension on both. Judy does some great research. Judy quotes scripture extensively in an attempt to support teachings gleaned from Dake Scofield (sadly). But, I do believe her to be well-intentioned (occasionally). - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 18, 2004 17:38 Subject: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Lance, I am curious to know if you still believe that Human Beings do not have either a soul or a spirit, in spite of Judys Biblical evidence to the contrary. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith, evidenced by love and obedience (Works).Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
As I read you it is apparent that your own sense of 'right and wrong' is informed by family, society and religious tradition.I do believe that God, Who embodies 'right wrong' ontologically, does break through to you (us) from time. As I listen to some of you flag-waving nut cases I cannot help but notice what political bondage you are in.--- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:34 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Lance, Why? Scripturally, what basis do you have to disbelieve God can inform our conscience between right and wrong? Do you believe there IS a right and wrong? Please dont ignore my questions as usual, but answer, as I would like to know what you mean. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:34 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) I believe the 'conscience' is 'constructed' socially. I do not believe that the 'conscience' of humankind is informed by God. - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 18:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Romans 1.12-16 a passage rather hard to encapsulate in a quick note. I think v.12 speak of those who live outside the framework of Torah. I.e., without the Law -or- under the law = outside the framework of Torah In v.13, hearers of Torah (rather than readers, because of the rarity of Torah scrolls at the time) learned and memorized Torah when it was read aloud. However, if they refused to do what it said, they are sinners who will eventually die sinful. Verses 14-16 are quite a mouthful. To stress the importance of deeds over head-knowledge of Torah or status as a Jew, Shaul pointedly speaks of Gentiles, who by definition dont have Torah but nevertheless do naturally what Torah requires, as being for themselves already Torah because their lives show that the conduct Torah dictates is written on their heart. That non-Jews have knowledge of the eternal moral Law of God set forth in Torah is further proved when they come to explicit and conscious faith in God on a day when God passes judgment on peoples inmost secrets, which, (according to the Gospel as Shaul proclaims it and as Yeshua Himself proclaimed it) he does through the Messiah Yeshua. On the day people come to faith they at last admit God was right and they were wrong. Some of their behavior may prove not blameworthy, so that their consciences sometimes defend them; but some of their behavior they will then perceive is falling short of Gods standard, and their consciences will accuse them. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature I only wish we could get commentary from Slade and David Miller on this scripture. I think you would find a whole different set of eyes seeing the meaning here. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
Well written brother John! Isn't it ironic that the very one who practically spits venom at the mention of a theologian or the hint of being informed by one should be so literally in bondage to a system of her own constructing then, call it 'what the Bible teaches'? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 01:22 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 John responds in BLUEIn a message dated 8/20/2004 5:54:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call it MY bias John. I didn't write the Bible.Bias is not a bad thing, Judy, it is a normal thing. But when it is used to ignore the plain teaching of a particular passage, well, it troublesome. We all fight Demon Bias. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the old flesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else in the entire Bible - do you John? I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture. I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well. As far as "another way?" This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law. So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost? Not according to Paul in v 15-16. And how is he saved -- through Jesus Christ. So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer. Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me. John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation.Of course you are -- I just told you. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt: Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new.Maybe I am confused, but isn't this my point? John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved" .. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law.Here you have injected your bias. And I understand what you are trying to protect, in terms of biblcial teaching. But you have reasoned your way to the conclusion "This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law." One more thing -- if the New Law is love, and it is called this in scripture, a benevolent Mongolian could practice care and concern by nature, having never heard a good old fashioned gospel sermon. So, what is his destiny, Judy. There he is in outer Mongolia, having never heard the gospel and he dies. Hell bound because we -- you and I - never got around to preaching the gospel to him? He is lost with your theory -- he MIGHT be saved through Christ with my understanding. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul who is outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Anyone who cannot preach 'gospel' from the Torah just doesn't understand the Torah. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 00:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Pretty good for an old guy. You made it into Smithson's "saved" file. Go ahead and tell Vee. .. ok, now with that done, I hesitate to add anything to this thoughtful post. But, an additional evidence for what Terry is saying is the very difference in style between much of the Old Scripture and that of the New. After the Cross, absolutely no hint of a legal system. Just read Gelatins or whatever and compare to Exodus, Leviticus.SmithmeisterIn a message dated 8/20/2004 5:53:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have nothing but respect for Slade. I think that he is serious about what he believes, and I think he probably tries to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord. Yet I cannot respect what he is teaching. Anytime anyone says that it is Jesus plus Torah, they are teaching in error, what Paul calls false teachers, and false teaching hurts the cause of Christ, whether or not it is done in good faith.Can I prove this? I believe I can, but of course I am biased, so you must decide for yourself after considering what I offer.Let's start with something Slade and I recently discussed very briefly - the parables of the wineskin and the new patch. I think it is obvious that Jesus was speaking to people who were familiar with both wineskins and new wine, as well as old and new cloth. He was not teaching a class on how to age wine or how to repair garments. He was using these things because people knew about them and could relate to them. He said, using my own paraphrase, "You can't put new wine in an old stiff animal skin; one that is dried and cracked, because the new wine, as it ferments, will give off gas that will cause pressure that the old bag cannot withstand. It will burst if you try it. You will lose everything - the wine skin and the wine. If you have a new batch of wine, you put it in a new, strong, flexible wine skin that can handle the pressure". Then He said, " You don't take a new piece of cloth and use it to patch a hole in your clothing, (no Sanforizing in those days) because the new cloth will shrink and tear the old cloth where it is sewn together, and the hole will be larger than ever." What Jesus was telling the hearers, and us, is that you cannot add Jesus to the old covenant without losing everything. Jesus did not come to patch up something old. He came to make something totally new, something called a Christian, a new creature in Christ.I said that I thought the above was obvious, so you will want to know why I see this as obvious. The answer is this. There is no way to fit the old covenant into the new covenant and there is no way to fit the new covenant into the old covenant. You would have a better chance of success if you mixed oil and water. Just a glance at either tells you immediately that the two are so contrary to one another that they cannot possibly co-exist. Under the old covenant, hereafter simply referred to as OC, you had one nation, Israel, out of all the nations, that could approach God. Of that nation, only one tribe could be priests. Of all the priests, only one could enter the presence of God, and him only one day a year. Under the new covenant, all believers are priests, and can approach God anyplace, any time, 24/7.During the OC, when you went to the temple, you found that everything to do with worship was handled by the Levites. The NC picture of the Church shows Jesus as the cornerstone, the apostles as the foundation, and every believer as a living stone. There are no Levites.In the OC, the Holy Spirit was only given to selected individuals, for a specific purpose, for a limited time. Under the NC, every believer receives the Holy Spirit at the moment that he or she is saved.The OC law of Moses made no allowance for failure. (Whoever shall keep the whole law of Moses, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.) The NC promises that we can do all things thru Christ, and if we fail, we have a redeemer. Under the OC, the only way to be righteous was to be totally compliant with 600 plus rules. Under the NC, we are considered righteous, not because of what we have done, but because of what our Savior has done.We could go on and on with endless comparisons, but you get the idea, I am sure; the law is not compatible with grace. When you stand before the throne, the question will not be "Did you eat pork, or did you tithe? It will be, what did you do with Christ?"That is why Paul
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
John:Yes indeed. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 17:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) In a message dated 8/20/2004 4:37:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: believe the 'conscience' is 'constructed' socially. I do not believe that the 'conscience' of humankind is informed by God.Depends on how you define "conscience" or what you include in that concept. There is an emotional trigger within each of us that goes off when we violate our sense of right and wrong. "Our sense of right and wrong" is what, I think, you are referring to and I agree with this. When baseball season comes on, and I coach kids baseball, I often wear the same hat in exactly the same way every time we have a game. When I do not or cannot follow this pattern of activity, I feel bad. -- just as I do when I harshly criticize by wife. That is the socialisation of the conscience (correct?). But the trigger is a part of our creation. And it has it's limitations. It never goes off when we fail to do something that is "wrong." I know it might sound silly, but a bank robbers never wakes up feeling bad because he did not rob some bank yesterday. This trigger only works one way -- in support of perceived goodness. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Second Adam = Assumption of first Adam's nature then redeeming it through 'spirit-empowered' obedience (i.e.fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant 'the unassumed is unhealed') This has been referred to as the 'double movement of God' God to man(kind) man(kind) to God (both by God) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 16:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/19/2004 8:00:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First Adam = fallen fleshSecond Adam = Lifegiving SpiritApparently one redundancy deserves another. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Did I detect a smile in your words there Judy? Good for you. Ever think of taking a run at 'open mike night' at the local comedy club?- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 16:37 Subject: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Same ol, same ol. It's always me personally and my presentation. Sadly you refuse todeal withtruth Lance. I am not the problem, neither am I personally the author of 1 Thess 5:23, or Hebrews 4:12 - However, they dosay the same thing every time I read them. Ephesians 6:17 teaches us thatthe "sword of the spirit" is the Word of God and Revelation 1:16 Gives us a picture of the return of Christ. He will have a sharp two edged sword coming out of His mouth. Wonder if this is the same sword that divides between soul and spirit? You can stay a "talking head" with a body if you want to and I'll keep on calling things what God calls them. You seem to have a problem with that but Oophs! I forgot, I've got the static gospel and you have the dynamic one. jt Lance wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Gnostic thy name is Judy. Judy: you're a great researcher (truly) so, please read Jonathan's post (sites listed) find out what they say TOT (then and only then) 'launch' your usual attack on the one who posted. We're pretty much accustomed to your blanket dismissals and name calling. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jonathan: The word (scripture) must always be subservient to the Word (Christ). To switch these around is to fall into error. Christians need to be constantly reminded that the fullest source of revelation from God to us has not been the Bible, but rather Himself in the Person of His Son (Col 1:15-20). To Christ be the glory. Amen. This paragraph is just great. First century Christians had no choice but to start with Jesus since the biblical message was not even close to being what it is today. That last sentence really gets to the heart of the discussion. John jt: Before His ascension Jesus revealed himself to his followers through the Psalms and the Prophets (Luke 24:44,45). And apparently Paul's ministry consisted of the same since he spent his time persuading people concerning Jesus out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets from morning till evening (Acts 28:23b). So what about this "other" Jesus. How do you know what Jesus thisis.Could be he is a gnostic Jesus or he could just be a figment of your own imagination. The REAL Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua IS the Word of God and this Jesus is the Door. Be not deceived, ALL others are thieves and robbers.
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 15:52 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved".. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul whois outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. John: Impossible? All things are possible -- especially when scripture says so. And Rom 2:12-16 clear makes that statement. jt: I believe you are reading into the text meaning that is not there. God is not doubleminded and He will not violate His own Word -actually it is impossible for Him to lie. It would be nice to think that everyone makes it, that God would lower his standard for some but this is living in religious fantasy. It is not reality. God has set the standard and it is the "royal law" Incidentally this law is the same as the Old Covenant law. If you compare the Sermon on the Mount with the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai you will find that Moses was given the letter and we have the Spirit of the same law. John: In a practical sense, most will fail in this regard, or at least a good number of individuals will fail. On the day of judgment, this man has no excuse. He cannot say, "But no one told me about Christ." In certain parts of the world, today, he could say this. God will only point to his personal choices and hold him accountable for his actions through Christ. jt: There is no excuse anyway John Romans 1:21,22 strips away that delusion. If they choose to seek Him God will make sure someone comes to them with the truth as he did with Cornelius in the book of Acts. If not He will CAUSE them to believe the lie because they refused to love the truth. (2 Thess 2:11) John: None of this logic counters Ro 2:12-16. Why not allow this text to amend your belief? jt:Romans 2:12-16 in balance and context is Paulwriting to the Church at Rome whose faith has been spoken of over the entire world and who he sayshas like faith with him. Why do you make it so difficult to accept that the gentile in this text is born again and part of the New Creation in Christ; A gentile whodoes by nature the things that
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Jeff:Sticking to the Bible doctrine are not mutually exclusive. You do know that, right? - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 18:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Terry If this is the spoonful of truth that you fed me and I in your words,"spat out" I have to reply that there is a grain of truth here, then you resorted to doctrine. Not Biblical truth. So, now I'll ask you directly to explain the Bet Din (the council)in Acts 15. Please stick to the Bible, no doctrine. Explain the ruling of this council and pay very close attention to verse 21," For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues." Don't forget Terry, at this time the synagogues were the places of meeting and worshiping for the early "Christians" both the Jewish believers (the evangelists) and the Gentile converts. You see, from my perspective, it is you who spat out the Biblical truth in favor of man-made doctrine. You said those times are over, how terribly wrong you are. Or is Matt. 5:17-19 missing from your Bible? Jesus said,"Don't misunderstand why I came. I didn't come to abolish the law of Moses (Torah) I came to fulfill it. I assure you until heaven and earth disappear the smallest detail of Gods Torah will remain until its purpose is achieved. So if you break the smallest commandment AND teach others to do the same you will be the least in heaven, and anyone who obeys the Torah of God and teaches others to do likewise will be great in the Kingdom of heaven." Heaven and earth are still here, how can the time have ended? It seems to me that your definition of the word "fulfilled" must be that it is garbage and can now be thrown into the trash. Jeff Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith, evidenced by love and obedience (Works).Terry
[TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
John writes: I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture. I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well. jt: I didn't post references but they are there. Understanding the fall of manand why God instituted the Mosaic Law to begin with is a good start and from there to New Creation realities. What being born again means and the outworking in a person's life ie walking after the Spirit rather than fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. As far as "another way?" This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law. jt: What New Law? There is no "new Law" What is new is the Covenant or Testament. It was with Moses and included the ritual or Levitical Law. It is now through Christ and through Him we are to walk after the Spirit and fulfill the "royal law" - Same law. Love fulfills it. So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost? jt: Yes. There are not two gospels. One for this felow (and 3rd world countries) and another for those of us who live in the USA. Not according to Paul in v 15-16. And how is he saved -- through Jesus Christ. So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer. Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me. jt: Yours is not a biblical teaching John. To teach that someone can be saved through Christ apart from conviction, confession, and repentanceis to walk in massive denial... (even to the point of negating the ministry of John the Baptist who came to "prepare the way of the Lord" exhorting people to repent and telling them that if they did not the axe would be laid to the root of the tree (them). Noone gets to carry all their carnalmess into Christ. Not even the gentile in V.15-16.and to go on and claimthatthis manfulfilled God's Law while still in his sineven more preposterous. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Purple text this time - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Anyone who cannot preach 'gospel' from the Torah just doesn't understand the Torah. Very good Lance! Terry said, What Jesus was telling the hearers, and us, is that you cannot add Jesus to the old covenant without losing everything. Jesus did not come to patch up something old. He came to make something totally new, something called a Christian, a new creature in Christ. Back up Terry, This is why I insist on a Biblical answer instead of a doctrinal answer. Jesus said no such thing. To make something totally new, this something you call a Christian would bea sin tantamount to the sin of Satan. And that would make Jesus a liar. Terry,can you not see the absurdity of that doctrine? Jeff
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
Take a look at the gospel(s) being preached:narcissistic, health wealth, individualistic, deistic (founding fathers), gnostic/dualistic, biblicist/fundamentalist (read angry), religious, tradition-bound, non-open structured (static), -anyone want to add to the list The element of surprise (who is present and who is absent) is underplayed.Some persons (today) have a living relationship with the Living God who do not (I repeat NOT) name the name of Christ as some of the above-named gospels would call for. Some come to this in in ways unknown to me or to you all over the world over all time. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 06:49 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 John writes: I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture. I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well. jt: I didn't post references but they are there. Understanding the fall of manand why God instituted the Mosaic Law to begin with is a good start and from there to New Creation realities. What being born again means and the outworking in a person's life ie walking after the Spirit rather than fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. As far as "another way?" This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law. jt: What New Law? There is no "new Law" What is new is the Covenant or Testament. It was with Moses and included the ritual or Levitical Law. It is now through Christ and through Him we are to walk after the Spirit and fulfill the "royal law" - Same law. Love fulfills it. So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost? jt: Yes. There are not two gospels. One for this felow (and 3rd world countries) and another for those of us who live in the USA. Not according to Paul in v 15-16. And how is he saved -- through Jesus Christ. So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer. Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me. jt: Yours is not a biblical teaching John. To teach that someone can be saved through Christ apart from conviction, confession, and repentanceis to walk in massive denial... (even to the point of negating the ministry of John the Baptist who came to "prepare the way of the Lord" exhorting people to repent and telling them that if they did not the axe would be laid to the root of the tree (them). Noone gets to carry all their carnalmess into Christ. Not even the gentile in V.15-16.and to go on and claimthatthis manfulfilled God's Law while still in his sineven more preposterous. judyt
[TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
In a message dated 8/20/2004 4:37:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I believe the 'conscience' is 'constructed' socially. I do not believe that the 'conscience' of humankind is informed by God. jt: For the unredeemed this is so, they march to a different tune because of the blindness and hardness of the heart. John: Depends on how you define "conscience" or what you include in that concept. There is an emotional trigger within each of us that goes off when we violate our sense of right and wrong. "Our sense of right and wrong" is what, I think, you are referring to and I agree with this. jt: The conscience can betwisted or bent according to what a child is taught. Where there is no knowledge of God and His ways there is no standard of righteousnessand absolutely no spiritual discernment;evil is called good andgood is called evil. This why Peter points out that we were not redeemed by silver and gold from "thevain tradition received from the Fathers" andwhy scripture is so necessary for correction and for "instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16) John: When baseball season comes on, and I coach kids baseball, I often wear the same hat in exactly the same way every time we have a game. When I do not or cannot follow this pattern of activity, I feel bad. jt: Some social or obsessive compulsive thing John: -- just as I do when I harshly criticize by wife. jt: Sin - in that you have violated the "royal law" John: That is the socialisation of the conscience (correct?). But the trigger is a part of our creation. And it has it's limitations. It never goes off when we fail to do something that is "wrong." I know it might sound silly, but a bank robbers never wakes up feeling bad because he did not rob some bank yesterday. This trigger only works one way -- in support of perceived goodness. John
[TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Second Adam = Assumption of first Adam's nature jt: Where in all of scripture is the basis for the above presumption? He took upon Himself the "form" of man which is a body. He became flesh and blood like us, experienced the weariness and other limitations of flesh. then redeeming it through 'spirit-empowered' obedience (i.e.fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant 'the unassumed is unhealed') jt: The very fact of his birth is fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant which was a covenant of promise.He is that promise. Lots of sickness in the world as well as the professing Church, not many apparently are assumed. This has been referred to as the 'double movement of God' God to man(kind) man(kind) to God (both by God) Whose words are these? Chapter? Verse? In a message dated 8/19/2004 8:00:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First Adam = fallen fleshSecond Adam = Lifegiving SpiritApparently one redundancy deserves another. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
In a message dated 8/21/2004 2:43:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not check out perichoresis site? Things can be read and heard. Following that 'one' could offer an informed opinion. (excluding Judy, of course as she has written off an Incarnational/Trinitarian understanding of God and His Gospel) PS-The Gospel of Grace is everywhere present in the 'older' Testament. Look at the paragraph preceding the decalogue. The sainted, much maligned, much missed Bill Taylor outlined all of this in some detail. How do I access the archieves? JDavid
[TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Check Heb 2:16-18. jt: Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood. Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same." In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children. The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Second Adam = Assumption of first Adam's nature jt: Where in all of scripture is the basis for the above presumption? He took upon Himself the "form" of man which is a body. He became flesh and blood like us, experienced the weariness and other limitations of flesh. then redeeming it through 'spirit-empowered' obedience (i.e.fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant 'the unassumed is unhealed') jt: The very fact of his birth is fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant which was a covenant of promise.He is that promise. Lots of sickness in the world as well as the professing Church, not many apparently are assumed. This has been referred to as the 'double movement of God' God to man(kind) man(kind) to God (both by God) Whose words are these? Chapter? Verse? In a message dated 8/19/2004 8:00:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First Adam = fallen fleshSecond Adam = Lifegiving SpiritApparently one redundancy deserves another. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Gospel for dummies
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 20, 2004 12:52
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
BTW, Jonathan, I never said that a particular parable was the key to understanding the gospel. But JESUS said, in Mark 4:
11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,
12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."
13 And He said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?
If I may translate: The parables are the Gospel for Dummies who dont get it. Izzy
The parables posed an interpretvie problem for the disciples -- not that easy to understand as per Christ's remarks above. Why? I think ("I am thinking" = not yet written in stone; "I think" = stonded) I think it is because they were trying to make too much of the parable -- looking for meaning in every word and nuance rather than accepting the more obvious single point of the parable.
JDavid Smitty
[TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. jt: Says who Lance - You? Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved".. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul whois outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. John: Impossible? All things are possible -- especially when scripture says so. And Rom 2:12-16 clear makes that statement. jt: I believe you are reading into the text meaning that is not there. God is not doubleminded and He will not violate His own Word -actually it is impossible for Him to lie. It would be nice to think that everyone makes it, that God would lower his standard for some but this is living in religious fantasy. It is not reality. God has set the standard and it is the "royal law" Incidentally this law is the same as the Old Covenant law. If you compare the Sermon on the Mount with the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai you will find that Moses was given the letter and we have the Spirit of the same law. John: In a practical sense, most will fail in this regard, or at least a good number of individuals will fail. On the day of judgment, this man has no excuse. He cannot say, "But no one told me about Christ." In certain parts of the world, today, he could say this. God will only point to his personal choices and hold him accountable for his actions through Christ. jt: There is no excuse anyway John Romans 1:21,22 strips away that delusion. If they choose to seek Him God will make sure someone comes to them with the truth as he did with Cornelius in the book of Acts. If not He will CAUSE them to believe the lie because they refused to love the truth. (2 Thess 2:11) John: None of this logic counters Ro 2:12-16. Why not allow this text to amend your belief? jt:Romans 2:12-16 in balance and context is Paulwriting to the Church at Rome whose faith has been spoken of over the entire world and who he sayshas like faith with him. Why do you make it so difficult to accept that the gentile in this text is born again and part of the New Creation in Christ; A gentile whodoes by nature the things that are in the law because he's been made a "partaker of the
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Smits:Just do a google search. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 10:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/21/2004 2:43:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not check out perichoresis site? Things can be read and heard. Following that 'one' could offer an informed opinion. (excluding Judy, of course as she has written off an Incarnational/Trinitarian understanding of God and His Gospel) PS-The Gospel of Grace is everywhere present in the 'older' Testament. Look at the paragraph preceding the decalogue. The sainted, much maligned, much missed Bill Taylor outlined all of this in some detail.How do I access the archieves?JDavid
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
Jt:Yes indeed! Say I. PS: If you're not just being your funny self: (Exclude me as I believe that you do that already) Given the interpretive diversity on almost every issue..point made (right Judy?) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 11:22 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. jt: Says who Lance - You? Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved".. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul whois outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. John: Impossible? All things are possible -- especially when scripture says so. And Rom 2:12-16 clear makes that statement. jt: I believe you are reading into the text meaning that is not there. God is not doubleminded and He will not violate His own Word -actually it is impossible for Him to lie. It would be nice to think that everyone makes it, that God would lower his standard for some but this is living in religious fantasy. It is not reality. God has set the standard and it is the "royal law" Incidentally this law is the same as the Old Covenant law. If you compare the Sermon on the Mount with the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai you will find that Moses was given the letter and we have the Spirit of the same law. John: In a practical sense, most will fail in this regard, or at least a good number of individuals will fail. On the day of judgment, this man has no excuse. He cannot say, "But no one told me about Christ." In certain parts of the world, today, he could say this. God will only point to his personal choices and hold him accountable for his actions through Christ. jt: There is no excuse anyway John Romans 1:21,22 strips away that delusion. If they choose to seek Him God will make sure someone comes to them with the truth as he did with Cornelius in the book of Acts. If not He will CAUSE them to believe the lie because they refused to love the
[TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] As I read you it is apparent that your own sense of 'right and wrong' is informed by family, society and religious tradition. jt: As opposed to what? TFT, Kruger, Polyani et al. I do believe that God, Who embodies 'right wrong' ontologically, does break through to you (us) from time. jt:God is not metaphysical/ontological. He is a Spirit which makes Him spiritual and so is Truth (spiritual that is) As I listen to some of you flag-waving nut cases I cannot help but notice what political bondage you are in.--- jt:Maybe we shouldhold the November elections in Toronto Lance so that all you 'enlightened ones' could show us how to do it. From: ShieldsFamily Lance, Why? Scripturally, what basis do you have to disbelieve God can inform our conscience between right and wrong? Do you believe there IS a right and wrong? Please dont ignore my questions as usual, but answer, as I would like to know what you mean. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:34 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) I believe the 'conscience' is 'constructed' socially. I do not believe that the 'conscience' of humankind is informed by God. - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 18:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Romans 1.12-16 a passage rather hard to encapsulate in a quick note. I think v.12 speak of those who live outside the framework of Torah. I.e., without the Law -or- under the law = outside the framework of Torah In v.13, hearers of Torah (rather than readers, because of the rarity of Torah scrolls at the time) learned and memorized Torah when it was read aloud. However, if they refused to do what it said, they are sinners who will eventually die sinful. Verses 14-16 are quite a mouthful. To stress the importance of deeds over head-knowledge of Torah or status as a Jew, Shaul pointedly speaks of Gentiles, who by definition dont have Torah but nevertheless do naturally what Torah requires, as being for themselves already Torah because their lives show that the conduct Torah dictates is written on their heart. That non-Jews have knowledge of the eternal moral Law of God set forth in Torah is further proved when they come to explicit and conscious faith in God on a day when God passes judgment on peoples inmost secrets, which, (according to the Gospel as Shaul proclaims it and as Yeshua Himself proclaimed it) he does through the Messiah Yeshua. On the day people come to faith they at last admit God was right and they were wrong. Some of their behavior may prove not blameworthy, so that their consciences sometimes defend them; but some of their behavior they will then perceive is falling short of Gods standard, and their consciences will accuse them. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature I only wish we could get commentary from Slade and David Miller on this scripture. I think you would find a whole different set of eyes seeing the meaning here. Izzy
[TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Yes indeed! Say I. PS: If you're not just being your funny self: (Exclude me as I believe that you do that already) Given the interpretive diversity on almost every issue..point made (right Judy?) jt: Your point once more Lance, definitely notGod's. Just because we observe so much confusion and ignorance around us does not mean Truth is diverse. It will be a sad day when some are forced toface the factthat they are not as "chummy" with God as they thought they were. [EMAIL PROTECTED] How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. jt: Says who Lance - You? Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved".. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul whois outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. John: Impossible? All things are possible -- especially when scripture says so. And Rom 2:12-16 clear makes that statement. jt: I believe you are reading into the text meaning that is not there. God is not doubleminded and He will not violate His own Word -actually it is impossible for Him to lie. It would be nice to think that everyone makes it, that God would lower his standard for some but this is living in religious fantasy. It is not reality. God has set the standard and it is the "royal law" Incidentally this law is the same as the Old Covenant law. If you compare the Sermon on the Mount with the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai you will find that Moses was given the letter and we have the Spirit of the same law. John: In a practical sense, most will fail in this regard, or at least a good number of individuals will fail. On the day of judgment, this man has no excuse. He cannot say, "But no one told me about Christ." In certain parts of the world, today, he could say this. God will only point to his personal choices and hold him accountable for his actions through Christ. jt: There is no excuse anyway John Romans 1:21,22 strips away that delusion. If they choose to seek Him God will make sure someone comes to
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
Jt:Can you help me distinguish between wilfully ignorant and just plain ignorant? I'm not even hinting that truth is diverse (this my question above). As to the less-than-veiled 'warning' well...thankfully you are not my judge (Judy) (Oh look it's a kinda untentional joke) 'Theological statements operate with what we may call open concepts--concepts which, to be sure, must be closed on our side, for wehave to formulate them as carefully and exactly as we can, but which on God's side, are open to the infinite objectivity and inexhaustible reality of the divine Being" Objection your honor he just quoted TFT. Clerk, strike that from the record. The jury will ignore any reference to that man and anything he has ever said. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 11:51 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Yes indeed! Say I. PS: If you're not just being your funny self: (Exclude me as I believe that you do that already) Given the interpretive diversity on almost every issue..point made (right Judy?) jt: Your point once more Lance, definitely notGod's. Just because we observe so much confusion and ignorance around us does not mean Truth is diverse. It will be a sad day when some are forced toface the factthat they are not as "chummy" with God as they thought they were. [EMAIL PROTECTED] How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. jt: Says who Lance - You? Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved".. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul whois outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. John: Impossible? All things are possible -- especially when scripture says so. And Rom 2:12-16 clear makes that statement. jt: I believe you are reading into the text meaning that is not there. God is not doubleminded and He will not violate His own
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
[TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Can you help me distinguish between wilfully ignorant and just plain ignorant? jt: What difference does it make Lance? - ignorant is ignorant. God said His people perished for lack of knowledge. . I'm not even hinting that truth is diverse (this my question above). As to the less-than-veiled 'warning' well...thankfully you are not my judge (Judy) (Oh look it's a kinda untentional joke). 'Theological statements operate with what we may call open concepts--concepts which, to be sure, must be closed on our side, for we have to formulate them as carefully and exactly as we can, but which on God's side, are open to the infinite objectivity and inexhaustible reality of the divine Being" Objection your honor he just quoted TFT. Clerk, strike that from the record. The jury will ignore any reference to that man and anything he has ever said. jt: I sure wouldn't take TFT's word for what happens "on God's side" if I were you. You would be much, much, safer to go by Romans 15:4, lest you be found "in that day" holding to the lie. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Yes indeed! Say I. PS: If you're not just being your funny self: (Exclude me as I believe that you do that already) Given the interpretive diversity on almost every issue..point made (right Judy?) jt: Your point once more Lance, definitely notGod's. Just because we observe so much confusion and ignorance around us does not mean Truth is diverse. It will be a sad day when some are forced toface the factthat they are not as "chummy" with God as they thought they were. [EMAIL PROTECTED] How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. jt: Says who Lance - You? Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved".. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul whois outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. John: Impossible? All things are possible -- especially when scripture says so. And
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:May I (laughingly) suggest that you start your own church? We then, will all fall (statically) in line behind you (You, of course being statically in line with all the truth of Scripture). Problem solved eh? God luv ya Judy! You are one ultra-certainlady. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 13:02 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Michael D, Would you mind telling us what the 20 yr old root was, to give us a concrete example? Izzy Please bear with me for an example, Jeff. A close brother in Christ was going through some devasting business failures for seemingly no reason (for the scale involved). I constantly encouraged him to do what I am saying here. After a couple of years of pointing him there over and over, the Lord was able to show him the root which was planted some twenty years ago. He was stunned when the Lord told him about it. He could not believe something so seemingly insignificant could have caused so much distress and faith shortfalls in his life.
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:May I (laughingly) suggest that you start your own church? We then, will all fall (statically) in line behind you (You, of course being statically in line with all the truth of Scripture). Problem solved eh? God luv ya Judy! You are one ultra-certainlady. jt: I have a question Lance. Does the truth of God's Word mean nothing at all to you unless validated by your favorite theologian? Do you spend any of your time meditatingon what God says? From: Judy Taylor John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit?
Oh noJohn is using the essence word now! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? In a message dated 8/20/2004 6:29:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: The mere citation is no good unless you can prove what you are saying is so by the rest of scripture and you have never done this. The scriptures do not teach that all humanity is in Christ just by virtue of being human. Lance has spoken of universality verses univeralism. The difference between the two must be a response of some sort. If we are all born with the same potential as Adam at the time of his creation (and I have been given absolutely no scripture that says he is anything but like me), then, from the very beginning, even before the so called fall, God in Christ was going to be a part of the earth-to-heaven story. That was always the case. Christ is not the last minute solution to a problem that Adam created and passed on to all humanity. What we do here on earth qualifies and prepares us for the next life. What Christ did on the cross allows us to fall short of God's glorious essence (Ro 3:23) as we prepare to pass on to this life God has planned for us from the beginning --- and that life is going to be different from the green grass, tree bark and bad fruit of the Garden of Eden. John
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 13:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
[TruthTalk] Soul Spirit?
Astute observation Izzy - what meaneth this? jt Oh noJohn is using the essence word now! Izzy jt: The mere citation is no good unless you can prove what you are saying is so by the rest of scripture and you have never done this. The scriptures do not teach that "all humanity" is in Christ just by virtue of being human. Lance has spoken of universality verses univeralism. The difference between the two must be a response of some sort.If we are all born with the same potential as Adam at the time of his creation (and I have been given absolutely no scripture that says he is anything but like me), then, from the very beginning, even before the so called "fall," God in Christ was going to be a part of the earth-to-heaven story. That was always the case. Christ is not the last minute solution to a problem that Adam created and passed on to all humanity. What we do here on earth qualifies and prepares us for the next life. What Christ did on the cross allows us to fall short of God's glorious essence (Ro 3:23) as we prepare to pass on to this life God has planned for us from the beginning --- and that life is going to be different from the green grass, tree bark and bad fruit of the Garden of Eden. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
John, Thank you for clarifying. Kruger sees the cross (and forgiveness it provides) simply as fringe benefits of the gospel; this is the centerpiece of every cult. I am very wary of any theology that diminishes the need for repentance and holiness, and ignores the centrality of the Blood of Christ as the crux of our redemption. The cross is the fulcrum upon which all of the universe is leveraged. Fellowship is wonderful. But holiness is essential to true Relationship with Him. Western theology does not see Jesus as just sitting on the sideline after His job is done. We see Him as ever interceding for us and enabling us to live sinlessly. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Izzy, have you read any of my posting to Lance? The biggest problem I have with Kruger is the issue of obedience, repentance and the like. But, I am not going to throw out Kruger because I have not figured this out -- even if I come to disagree with Kruger in some important aspects, that does not mean that Kruger's thinking is of no account. What is fascinating to me is his conclusion that community (fellowship) is at the center of the essence of God. I had never appreciated the value of believing in a multipersonality Godhead until Kruger's comment about fellowship That teaching has so many applications in scripture. Trinity or Godhead? Before Kruger, I couldn't have cared less. Izzy --- I will not omit repentance or obedience or whatever -- I will find a place for those things that answers to scripture. I agree with Paul -- when I think I know something, I do not yet know it as I ought. Static is out -- dynamic is in. John In a message dated 8/20/2004 5:52:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All your new Kruger mentality gospel without repentance comments of late. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/19/2004 6:26:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I cant believe ityouve gone over to the dark side. What name do you give your new philosophy? Izzy Referencing what?
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Then you should call yourself Sunshine. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/20/2004 5:53:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, Lord, Smithson has even changed his name! Izzy Stop it, Izzy. A rose is a rose by any other name. J
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Linda:shorter shorter zzz - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:10 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Gelatins??? J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Pretty good for an old guy. You made it into Smithson's "saved" file. Go ahead and tell Vee. .. ok, now with that done, I hesitate to add anything to this thoughtful post. But, an additional evidence for what Terry is saying is the very difference in style between much of the Old Scripture and that of the New. After the Cross, absolutely no hint of a legal system. Just read Gelatins or whatever and compare to Exodus, Leviticus.SmithmeisterIn a message dated 8/20/2004 5:53:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have nothing but respect for Slade. I think that he is serious about what he believes, and I think he probably tries to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord. Yet I cannot respect what he is teaching. Anytime anyone says that it is Jesus plus Torah, they are teaching in error, what Paul calls false teachers, and false teaching hurts the cause of Christ, whether or not it is done in good faith.Can I prove this? I believe I can, but of course I am biased, so you must decide for yourself after considering what I offer.Let's start with something Slade and I recently discussed very briefly - the parables of the wineskin and the new patch. I think it is obvious that Jesus was speaking to people who were familiar with both wineskins and new wine, as well as old and new cloth. He was not teaching a class on how to age wine or how to repair garments. He was using these things because people knew about them and could relate to them. He said, using my own paraphrase, "You can't put new wine in an old stiff animal skin; one that is dried and cracked, because the new wine, as it ferments, will give off gas that will cause pressure that the old bag cannot withstand. It will burst if you try it. You will lose everything - the wine skin and the wine. If you have a new batch of wine, you put it in a new, strong, flexible wine skin that can handle the pressure". Then He said, " You don't take a new piece of cloth and use it to patch a hole in your clothing, (no Sanforizing in those days) because the new cloth will shrink and tear the old cloth where it is sewn together, and the hole will be larger than ever." What Jesus was telling the hearers, and us, is that you cannot add Jesus to the old covenant without losing everything. Jesus did not come to patch up something old. He came to make something totally new, something called a Christian, a new creature in Christ.I said that I thought the above was obvious, so you will want to know why I see this as obvious. The answer is this. There is no way to fit the old covenant into the new covenant and there is no way to fit the new covenant into the old covenant. You would have a better chance of success if you mixed oil and water. Just a glance at either tells you immediately that the two are so contrary to one another that they cannot possibly co-exist. Under the old covenant, hereafter simply referred to as OC, you had one nation, Israel, out of all the nations, that could approach God. Of that nation, only one tribe could be priests. Of all the priests, only one could enter the presence of God, and him only one day a year. Under the new covenant, all believers are priests, and can approach God anyplace, any time, 24/7.During the OC, when you went to the temple, you found that everything to do with worship was handled by the Levites. The NC picture of the Church shows Jesus as the cornerstone, the apostles as the foundation, and every believer as a living stone. There are no Levites.In the OC, the Holy Spirit was only given to selected individuals, for a specific purpose, for a limited time. Under the NC, every believer receives the Holy Spirit at the moment that he or she is saved.The OC law of Moses made no allowance for failure. (Whoever shall keep the whole law of Moses, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.) The NC promises that we can do all things thru Christ, and if we fail, we have a redeemer. Under the OC, the only way to be righteous was to be totally compliant with 600 plus rules. Under the NC, we are considered righteous, not because of what we have done, but because of what our Savior has done.We could go on and on with endless comparisons, but you get the idea, I am sure; the law is not compatible with grace. When you stand before the throne, the question will not be "Did you eat pork, or did you
RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
John, Paul was referring to the OT Law (or sometimes Talmud law) whenever he referenced the Law. Most early Christians were Jews, well associated with the Law. According to Romans, all are judged by the right and wrong that they know in their hearts, whether from the written Law or not. Lance is incorrect: God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong (at least until we have seared it.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/20/2004 5:52:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Im just trying to hammer out a definition here. Do you or dont you agree that when Paul was saying Law he was speaking of the OT Commandments??? Im too busy to curl up by the fireplace. Izzy Shame on you. If you would sit down and really take a good long look at both passages, you would, I think, see why I say some of the things I say. But to answer your question, Paul is not talking about the Old Law in Ro 2:12 --16 except to use it as an illustration that any law is in view. A Gentile would, typically, not be a keeper of the Mosaical System. What do you think happens to the Gentile in outer Mongolia who has never heard the gospel and then dies? I have an answer (Ro 212-16) and you do not. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Iz:No I'm not. (keepin 'em short) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature John, Paul was referring to the OT Law (or sometimes Talmud law) whenever he referenced the Law. Most early Christians were Jews, well associated with the Law. According to Romans, all are judged by the right and wrong that they know in their hearts, whether from the written Law or not. Lance is incorrect: God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong (at least until we have seared it.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:48 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/20/2004 5:52:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Im just trying to hammer out a definition here. Do you or dont you agree that when Paul was saying Law he was speaking of the OT Commandments??? Im too busy to curl up by the fireplace. Izzy Shame on you. If you would sit down and really take a good long look at both passages, you would, I think, see why I say some of the things I say. But to answer your question, Paul is not talking about the Old Law in Ro 2:12 --16 except to use it as an illustration that any law is in view. A Gentile would, typically, not be a keeper of the Mosaical System. What do you think happens to the Gentile in outer Mongolia who has never heard the gospel and then dies? I have an answer (Ro 2"12-16) and you do not. John
RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Gelatins??? J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Pretty good for an old guy. You made it into Smithson's saved file. Go ahead and tell Vee. .. ok, now with that done, I hesitate to add anything to this thoughtful post. But, an additional evidence for what Terry is saying is the very difference in style between much of the Old Scripture and that of the New. After the Cross, absolutely no hint of a legal system. Just read Gelatins or whatever and compare to Exodus, Leviticus. Smithmeister In a message dated 8/20/2004 5:53:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have nothing but respect for Slade. I think that he is serious about what he believes, and I think he probably tries to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord. Yet I cannot respect what he is teaching. Anytime anyone says that it is Jesus plus Torah, they are teaching in error, what Paul calls false teachers, and false teaching hurts the cause of Christ, whether or not it is done in good faith. Can I prove this? I believe I can, but of course I am biased, so you must decide for yourself after considering what I offer. Let's start with something Slade and I recently discussed very briefly - the parables of the wineskin and the new patch. I think it is obvious that Jesus was speaking to people who were familiar with both wineskins and new wine, as well as old and new cloth. He was not teaching a class on how to age wine or how to repair garments. He was using these things because people knew about them and could relate to them. He said, using my own paraphrase, You can't put new wine in an old stiff animal skin; one that is dried and cracked, because the new wine, as it ferments, will give off gas that will cause pressure that the old bag cannot withstand. It will burst if you try it. You will lose everything - the wine skin and the wine. If you have a new batch of wine, you put it in a new, strong, flexible wine skin that can handle the pressure. Then He said, You don't take a new piece of cloth and use it to patch a hole in your clothing, (no Sanforizing in those days) because the new cloth will shrink and tear the old cloth where it is sewn together, and the hole will be larger than ever. What Jesus was telling the hearers, and us, is that you cannot add Jesus to the old covenant without losing everything. Jesus did not come to patch up something old. He came to make something totally new, something called a Christian, a new creature in Christ. I said that I thought the above was obvious, so you will want to know why I see this as obvious. The answer is this. There is no way to fit the old covenant into the new covenant and there is no way to fit the new covenant into the old covenant. You would have a better chance of success if you mixed oil and water. Just a glance at either tells you immediately that the two are so contrary to one another that they cannot possibly co-exist. Under the old covenant, hereafter simply referred to as OC, you had one nation, Israel, out of all the nations, that could approach God. Of that nation, only one tribe could be priests. Of all the priests, only one could enter the presence of God, and him only one day a year. Under the new covenant, all believers are priests, and can approach God anyplace, any time, 24/7. During the OC, when you went to the temple, you found that everything to do with worship was handled by the Levites. The NC picture of the Church shows Jesus as the cornerstone, the apostles as the foundation, and every believer as a living stone. There are no Levites. In the OC, the Holy Spirit was only given to selected individuals, for a specific purpose, for a limited time. Under the NC, every believer receives the Holy Spirit at the moment that he or she is saved. The OC law of Moses made no allowance for failure. (Whoever shall keep the whole law of Moses, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.) The NC promises that we can do all things thru Christ, and if we fail, we have a redeemer. Under the OC, the only way to be righteous was to be totally compliant with 600 plus rules. Under the NC, we are considered righteous, not because of what we have done, but because of what our Savior has done. We could go on and on with endless comparisons, but you get the idea, I am sure; the law is not compatible with grace. When you stand before the throne, the question will not be Did you eat pork, or did you tithe? It will be, what did you do with Christ? That is why Paul says in Romans 7:4 that believers have become dead to the law because Christ has saved us. The law has no hold on the follower of Christ. We do not have six hundred rules, we have two. Love God, love one another. Being a gentile, I was never under the law to begin with, but in that same verse, Paul also tells us that those
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:IFF I were to 'follow' someone it would be someone like yourself who, insofar as I can recall, has never be wrong on anything. Who wouldn't want to follow that kind of person? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:04 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Iz:No it (the cross) is not central! What IS central is WHO is on the cross. But, what about that which preceded it (His life) and, followed it (death, descent, resurrection ascent)???Hmm? Don't be theologically myopic. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:05 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature John, Thank you for clarifying. Kruger sees the cross (and forgiveness it provides) simply as fringe benefits of the gospel; this is the centerpiece of every cult. I am very wary of any theology that diminishes the need for repentance and holiness, and ignores the centrality of the Blood of Christ as the crux of our redemption. The cross is the fulcrum upon which all of the universe is leveraged. Fellowship is wonderful. But holiness is essential to true Relationship with Him. Western theology does not see Jesus as just sitting on the sideline after His job is done. We see Him as ever interceding for us and enabling us to live sinlessly. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:40 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Izzy, have you read any of my posting to Lance? The biggest problem I have with Kruger is the issue of obedience, repentance and the like. But, I am not going to throw out Kruger because I have not figured this out -- even if I come to disagree with Kruger in some important aspects, that does not mean that Kruger's thinking is of no account. What is fascinating to me is his conclusion that community (fellowship) is at the center of the essence of God. I had never appreciated the value of believing in a multipersonality Godhead until Kruger's comment about "fellowship" That teaching has so many applications in scripture. "Trinity" or "Godhead?" Before Kruger, I couldn't have cared less. Izzy --- I will not omit repentance or obedience or whatever -- I will find a place for those things that answers to scripture. I agree with Paul -- when I think I know something, I do not yet know it as I ought. Static is out -- dynamic is in. JohnIn a message dated 8/20/2004 5:52:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All your new Kruger mentality gospel without repentance comments of late. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:17 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/19/2004 6:26:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:John, I cant believe ityouve gone over to the dark side. What name do you give your new philosophy? IzzyReferencing what?
RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Well, like ya know; God aint stuck in chronology, Lance. Get it? The Trinity always existed, always will, and nothing is new with that. He is I AM, not I WAS, I AM, and I WILL BE. He is free of time, which you are using to say that He changes, contrary to scripture. (Which He wrote and with which you disagree.) Izzy I amYHVH your God and I do not change. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Please (duh) tell me your meaning. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:44 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance you are stuck in the earthly time warp. God is not. (duh) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Jt:Will you then explain your understanding of my three illustrations? 1. Cosmos (not eternal) 'New' 2. Incarnation (not eternal) 'New' 3. Humanity (Christ) ascended to the right hand of the Father (not eternal) 'New' - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 08:47 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Wrong, God does not change and neither does His Word but then you don't believe His Word, you would rather rest your faith in the words of theologians who have a broad way to heaven. Since God is the Source, the cosmos is not new to Him, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world is not new, and there will be no glorified flesh in heaven .. becauseno flesh gets to glory in His presence. You may have a dynamic understanding Lance but it is not from God. jt From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith, evidenced by love and obedience (Works). Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit?
Lance, You are as easy to understand as G. I guess that makes me dense. You wrote below Linda:I do for the reasons cited:soul (philsophical), spirit (poor exegesis). Was that actually supposed to EXPLAIN anything to me? I asked how you can explain away scriptural references to soul and spirit, and you answer Philosophical? And I mystify? You and G must be twins. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Speaking for myself (Lance) I often find it difficult to believe (allowing for my last post to you) that you truly don't understand as much as you indicate through your questions. You reflect a level of 'puzzlement' that mystifies. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:38 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Jonathan, Good to hear from you my friend. I am not taking the time to research your references. However I think I understand what you are saying. I think we are body/soul/spirit just as God as Father/Son/HolySpirit. Three in one. Not three different elements. What is your understanding, if there is no such thing as soul or spirit? Izzy PS Why do you always have to answer for Lance? Cat got his tongue? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Hi Izzy, Let me jump in here. One thing we always have to be careful of is our blind acceptance of some of our definitions. The soul, or spirit is one of these. When the New Testament writers were writing the NT they had two choices for describing the spiritual: they could either make up new names or use old names, already commonly accepted but with a spin that would set them apart. They chose the second. The concept of soul or spirit that you and Judy have comes completely from Greek philosophy. Whenever you see the word soul or spirit in the Bible you automatically use a skewed definition that is clearly opposite from actual scripture. It is not rooted in scripture at all. In other words, just because Judy gives a verse that uses the word soul or spirit does not in any way prove that they are actual entities separated from the rest of who we are. This is completely opposite of the Hebrew revelation from the Old Testament and leads one into Gnosticism as we can easily see in Judys writings (Gnosticism held that human beings consist of flesh, soul, and spirit (the divine spark), and that humanity is divided into classes representing each of these elements. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0821080.html). We must always be on the lookout for dualisms that are not present. Please see the links below for some more detailed information and word studies. http://www.cresourcei.org/bodysoul.html http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Lance, Im not following your logic. Let me spell it out, since you have not. Do you consider a soul to be a philosophy? Do you consider a spirit to be a poor exegesis? What are you saying they are? And how do you explain away the scriptural references to them? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Linda:I do for the reasons cited:soul (philsophical), spirit (poor exegesis). Judy's is a common misapprehension on both. Judy does some great research. Judy quotes scripture extensively in an attempt to support teachings gleaned from Dake Scofield (sadly). But, I do believe her to be well-intentioned (occasionally). - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 18, 2004 17:38 Subject: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Lance, I am curious to know if you still believe that Human Beings do not have either a soul or a spirit, in spite of Judys Biblical evidence to the contrary. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith, evidenced by love and obedience (Works). Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
Perry, Please whip Lance with something for his ad hominum attack on myself. Thank you. Izzy PS Lance you are so open minded your brains have fallen out. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) As I read you it is apparent that your own sense of 'right and wrong' is informed by family, society and religious tradition.I do believe that God, Who embodies 'right wrong' ontologically, does break through to you (us) from time. As I listen to some of you flag-waving nut cases I cannot help but notice what political bondage you are in.--- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:34 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Lance, Why? Scripturally, what basis do you have to disbelieve God can inform our conscience between right and wrong? Do you believe there IS a right and wrong? Please dont ignore my questions as usual, but answer, as I would like to know what you mean. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) I believe the 'conscience' is 'constructed' socially. I do not believe that the 'conscience' of humankind is informed by God. - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 18:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Romans 1.12-16 a passage rather hard to encapsulate in a quick note. I think v.12 speak of those who live outside the framework of Torah. I.e., without the Law -or- under the law = outside the framework of Torah In v.13, hearers of Torah (rather than readers, because of the rarity of Torah scrolls at the time) learned and memorized Torah when it was read aloud. However, if they refused to do what it said, they are sinners who will eventually die sinful. Verses 14-16 are quite a mouthful. To stress the importance of deeds over head-knowledge of Torah or status as a Jew, Shaul pointedly speaks of Gentiles, who by definition dont have Torah but nevertheless do naturally what Torah requires, as being for themselves already Torah because their lives show that the conduct Torah dictates is written on their heart. That non-Jews have knowledge of the eternal moral Law of God set forth in Torah is further proved when they come to explicit and conscious faith in God on a day when God passes judgment on peoples inmost secrets, which, (according to the Gospel as Shaul proclaims it and as Yeshua Himself proclaimed it) he does through the Messiah Yeshua. On the day people come to faith they at last admit God was right and they were wrong. Some of their behavior may prove not blameworthy, so that their consciences sometimes defend them; but some of their behavior they will then perceive is falling short of Gods standard, and their consciences will accuse them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature I only wish we could get commentary from Slade and David Miller on this scripture. I think you would find a whole different set of eyes seeing the meaning here. Izzy
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
jt: Cut the hype Lance - you do follow "people" - religious, intellectual, type people who teach at universities. Jt:IFF I were to 'follow' someone it would be someone like yourself who, insofar as I can recall, has never be wrong on anything. Who wouldn't want to follow that kind of person? I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Jesus became like us so that we could become like Him. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Second Adam = Assumption of first Adam's nature then redeeming it through 'spirit-empowered' obedience (i.e.fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant 'the unassumed is unhealed') This has been referred to as the 'double movement of God' God to man(kind) man(kind) to God (both by God) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 16:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/19/2004 8:00:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First Adam = fallen flesh Second Adam = Lifegiving Spirit Apparently one redundancy deserves another. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
Lance has illustrated for us the Kruger gospel: Christ not necessarily necessary. John and Lance: Do we or do we not need the Blood of Christ for the remission of sin? (Regardless of whether we have/have not heard, or where we live?) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 Take a look at the gospel(s) being preached:narcissistic, health wealth, individualistic, deistic (founding fathers), gnostic/dualistic, biblicist/fundamentalist (read angry), religious, tradition-bound, non-open structured (static), -anyone want to add to the list The element of surprise (who is present and who is absent) is underplayed.Some persons (today) have a living relationship with the Living God who do not (I repeat NOT) name the name of Christ as some of the above-named gospels would call for. Some come to this in in ways unknown to me or to you all over the world over all time. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 06:49 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 John writes: I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture. I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well. jt: I didn't post references but they are there. Understanding the fall of manand why God instituted the Mosaic Law to begin with is a good start and from there to New Creation realities. What being born again means and the outworking in a person's life ie walking after the Spirit rather than fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. As far as another way? This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law. jt: What New Law? There is no new Law What is new is the Covenant or Testament. It was with Moses and included the ritual or Levitical Law. It is now through Christ and through Him we are to walk after the Spirit and fulfill the royal law - Same law. Love fulfills it. So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost? jt: Yes. There are not two gospels. One for this felow (and 3rd world countries) and another for those of us who live in the USA. Not according to Paul in v 15-16. And how is he saved -- through Jesus Christ. So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer. Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me. jt: Yours is not a biblical teaching John. To teach that someone can be saved through Christ apart from conviction, confession, and repentanceis to walk in massive denial... (even to the point of negating the ministry of John the Baptist who came to prepare the way of the Lord exhorting people to repent and telling them that if they did not the axe would be laid to the root of the tree (them). Noone gets to carry all their carnalmess into Christ. Not even the gentile in V.15-16.and to go on and claimthatthis manfulfilled God's Law while still in his sineven more preposterous. judyt
Fw: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
"I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) jt Then God's Word can not be trusted because He does not stand by it and if the Word above is wrong then maybe Jesus is not the same yesterday, today, and forever.Maybe He was not the lamb slain before the foundation of the World. Maybe the cross was one big hoax after all ...Lance do you sell your version of scripture at your Bookstore? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. h, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith, evidenced by love and obedience (Works).Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
Lance is really on a roll. LOL! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 Jt:Can you help me distinguish between wilfully ignorant and just plain ignorant? I'm not even hinting that truth is diverse (this my question above). As to the less-than-veiled 'warning' well...thankfully you are not my judge (Judy) (Oh look it's a kinda untentional joke) 'Theological statements operate with what we may call open concepts--concepts which, to be sure, must be closed on our side, for wehave to formulate them as carefully and exactly as we can, but which on God's side, are open to the infinite objectivity and inexhaustible reality of the divine Being Objection your honor he just quoted TFT. Clerk, strike that from the record. The jury will ignore any reference to that man and anything he has ever said. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 11:51 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Yes indeed! Say I. PS: If you're not just being your funny self: (Exclude me as I believe that you do that already) Given the interpretive diversity on almost every issue..point made (right Judy?) jt: Your point once more Lance, definitely notGod's. Just because we observe so much confusion and ignorance around us does not mean Truth is diverse. It will be a sad day when some are forced toface the factthat they are not as chummy with God as they thought they were. [EMAIL PROTECTED] How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. jt: Says who Lance - You? Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses law in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article the and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that salvation is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the perfect law of liberty is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is another way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be good folk and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of law verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law, Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of being saved.. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him -- doing by nature the things of law. jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul whois outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. John: Impossible? All things are possible -- especially when scripture says so. And Rom 2:12-16 clear makes that statement. jt: I believe you are reading into the text meaning that is not there. God is not doubleminded and He will not violate His own Word -actually it is impossible for Him to lie. It would be nice
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
Jt:Where would we be without (Judge) Judy? My goodness! attending to the 'teachings of men' over the Bible. Thanks again, (Judge) Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 13:11 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Can you help me distinguish between wilfully ignorant and just plain ignorant? jt: What difference does it make Lance? - ignorant is ignorant. God said His people perished for lack of knowledge. . I'm not even hinting that truth is diverse (this my question above). As to the less-than-veiled 'warning' well...thankfully you are not my judge (Judy) (Oh look it's a kinda untentional joke). 'Theological statements operate with what we may call open concepts--concepts which, to be sure, must be closed on our side, for we have to formulate them as carefully and exactly as we can, but which on God's side, are open to the infinite objectivity and inexhaustible reality of the divine Being" Objection your honor he just quoted TFT. Clerk, strike that from the record. The jury will ignore any reference to that man and anything he has ever said. jt: I sure wouldn't take TFT's word for what happens "on God's side" if I were you. You would be much, much, safer to go by Romans 15:4, lest you be found "in that day" holding to the lie. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:Yes indeed! Say I. PS: If you're not just being your funny self: (Exclude me as I believe that you do that already) Given the interpretive diversity on almost every issue..point made (right Judy?) jt: Your point once more Lance, definitely notGod's. Just because we observe so much confusion and ignorance around us does not mean Truth is diverse. It will be a sad day when some are forced toface the factthat they are not as "chummy" with God as they thought they were. [EMAIL PROTECTED] How excellent for all that being right/correct/accurate in apprehension is not a prerequisite for 'salvation'. Rock on Judy. jt: Says who Lance - You? Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias. It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post. Check it out . jt: I wouldn't call itMY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. John: ... exegete is exegete. Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times. Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it. The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law. To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the oldflesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors. I don't see this concept anywhere else inthe entire Bible - do you John? John: Pointless? This exegetical obervation is pointless? The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less -- not to me. This is an observation about the written Word of God. At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance. jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. John ?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law,Obviously, this is not true. But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view. And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit. That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another. No good. jt:Jesus didn't come to patch up the old. He came to introduce something entirely new. John: Let me put this observation into context. In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent. God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved".. This is the only
RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Judy, You are on a roll, too. Good work. J Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Forgot to mention that being on the static side does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says I am the Lord, I change not Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording dynamic understanding would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ. How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught static understanding exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the mind of Christ 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the same yesterday, today, and forever which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, the signs Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident. Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Dont feel bad about that, jt. Liberals think the US Consitution is a living, breathing document as well (so they can change the original intent/meaning of it as well as the Bibles.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the static side does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says I am the Lord, I change not Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording dynamic understanding would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ. How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught static understanding exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the mind of Christ 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the same yesterday, today, and forever which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, the signs Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident. Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit?
(the dark side encroaches.) Do you think Sunshine Smithson has prayed for discernment in his readings? Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Astute observation Izzy - what meaneth this? jt Oh noJohn is using the essence word now! Izzy jt: The mere citation is no good unless you can prove what you are saying is so by the rest of scripture and you have never done this. The scriptures do not teach that all humanity is in Christ just by virtue of being human. Lance has spoken of universality verses univeralism. The difference between the two must be a response of some sort. If we are all born with the same potential as Adam at the time of his creation (and I have been given absolutely no scripture that says he is anything but like me), then, from the very beginning, even before the so called fall, God in Christ was going to be a part of the earth-to-heaven story. That was always the case. Christ is not the last minute solution to a problem that Adam created and passed on to all humanity. What we do here on earth qualifies and prepares us for the next life. What Christ did on the cross allows us to fall short of God's glorious essence (Ro 3:23) as we prepare to pass on to this life God has planned for us from the beginning --- and that life is going to be different from the green grass, tree bark and bad fruit of the Garden of Eden. John
RE: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt: check out the comic books. Iz .Lance do you sell your version of scripture at your Bookstore?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Iz:Methinks you miss the point (seriously). You and that other lady do that a lot. I wish to show no more disrespect than what is called for but(wilfull ignorance vs plain old ignorance?) Duhh Even a smart mouth like myself doesn't appreciate ignorance from a self-professed 'mature' believer. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Duh! Like, I know that, Lance. But do you? Iz Iz:No it (the cross) is not central! What IS central is WHO is on the cross.
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
So does Clarence Thomas for starters. But, I suspect that high court considerations are beyond you backwoods, redneck conservative types. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Dont feel bad about that, jt. Liberals think the US Consitution is a living, breathing document as well (so they can change the original intent/meaning of it as well as the Bibles.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:05 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Iz:Be careful she's gonna bite ya. Don't get too comfortable. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:43 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Judy, You are on a roll, too. Good work. J Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:44 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
His blood was spilled in the process of His redeeming life, death, descent, resurrection and, ascent. I know that 'scope' is tough for you Limbaughites. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 Lance has illustrated for us the Kruger gospel: Christ not necessarily necessary. John and Lance: Do we or do we not need the Blood of Christ for the remission of sin? (Regardless of whether we have/have not heard, or where we live?) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 Take a look at the gospel(s) being preached:narcissistic, health wealth, individualistic, deistic (founding fathers), gnostic/dualistic, biblicist/fundamentalist (read angry), religious, tradition-bound, non-open structured (static), -anyone want to add to the list The element of surprise (who is present and who is absent) is underplayed.Some persons (today) have a living relationship with the Living God who do not (I repeat NOT) name the name of Christ as some of the above-named gospels would call for. Some come to this in in ways unknown to me or to you all over the world over all time. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 06:49 Subject: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 John writes: I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture. I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well. jt: I didn't post references but they are there. Understanding the fall of manand why God instituted the Mosaic Law to begin with is a good start and from there to New Creation realities. What being born again means and the outworking in a person's life ie walking after the Spirit rather than fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. As far as "another way?" This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law. jt: What New Law? There is no "new Law" What is new is the Covenant or Testament. It was with Moses and included the ritual or Levitical Law. It is now through Christ and through Him we are to walk after the Spirit and fulfill the "royal law" - Same law. Love fulfills it. So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost? jt: Yes. There are not two gospels. One for this felow (and 3rd world countries) and another for those of us who live in the USA. Not according to Paul in v 15-16. And how is he saved -- through Jesus Christ. So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer. Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me. jt: Yours is not a biblical teaching John. To teach that someone can be saved through Christ apart from conviction, confession, and repentanceis to walk in massive denial... (even to the point of negating the ministry of John the Baptist who came to "prepare the way of the Lord" exhorting people to repent and telling them that if they did not the axe would be laid to the root of the tree (them). Noone gets to carry all their carnalmess into Christ. Not even the gentile in V.15-16.and to go on and claimthatthis manfulfilled God's Law while still in his sineven more preposterous. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature
Iz:you may need to nuance or, clarify a bit so as not to elicit too resounding an Amen from DaveH. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:29 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jesus became like us so that we could become like Him. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:18 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Second Adam = Assumption of first Adam's nature then redeeming it through 'spirit-empowered' obedience (i.e.fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant 'the unassumed is unhealed') This has been referred to as the 'double movement of God' God to man(kind) man(kind) to God (both by God) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 16:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature In a message dated 8/19/2004 8:00:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First Adam = fallen fleshSecond Adam = Lifegiving Spirit Apparently one redundancy deserves another. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
Iz:If you're gonna wrap yourself in the good old red, white blue I'm sure it will protect you from mere verbal assaults from a whimpy lib like me. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:28 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Perry, Please whip Lance with something for his ad hominum attack on myself. Thank you. Izzy PS Lance you are so open minded your brains have fallen out. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:54 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) As I read you it is apparent that your own sense of 'right and wrong' is informed by family, society and religious tradition.I do believe that God, Who embodies 'right wrong' ontologically, does break through to you (us) from time. As I listen to some of you flag-waving nut cases I cannot help but notice what political bondage you are in.--- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:34 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Lance, Why? Scripturally, what basis do you have to disbelieve God can inform our conscience between right and wrong? Do you believe there IS a right and wrong? Please dont ignore my questions as usual, but answer, as I would like to know what you mean. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:34 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) I believe the 'conscience' is 'constructed' socially. I do not believe that the 'conscience' of humankind is informed by God. - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 18:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) Romans 1.12-16 a passage rather hard to encapsulate in a quick note. I think v.12 speak of those who live outside the framework of Torah. I.e., without the Law -or- under the law = outside the framework of Torah In v.13, hearers of Torah (rather than readers, because of the rarity of Torah scrolls at the time) learned and memorized Torah when it was read aloud. However, if they refused to do what it said, they are sinners who will eventually die sinful. Verses 14-16 are quite a mouthful. To stress the importance of deeds over head-knowledge of Torah or status as a Jew, Shaul pointedly speaks of Gentiles, who by definition dont have Torah but nevertheless do naturally what Torah requires, as being for themselves already Torah because their lives show that the conduct Torah dictates is written on their heart. That non-Jews have knowledge of the eternal moral Law of God set forth in Torah is further proved when they come to explicit and conscious faith in God on a day when God passes judgment on peoples inmost secrets, which, (according to the Gospel as Shaul proclaims it and as Yeshua Himself proclaimed it) he does through the Messiah Yeshua. On the day people come to faith they at last admit God was right and they were wrong. Some of their behavior may prove not blameworthy, so that their consciences sometimes defend them; but some of their behavior they will then perceive is falling short of Gods standard, and their consciences will accuse them. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature I only wish we could get commentary from Slade and David Miller on this scripture. I think you would find a whole different set of eyes seeing the meaning here. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith,
Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit?
Iz:Be a good 'wifey' and, ask your husband. I think you said he had an education eh? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Lance, You are as easy to understand as G. I guess that makes me dense. You wrote below Linda:I do for the reasons cited:soul (philsophical), spirit (poor exegesis). Was that actually supposed to EXPLAIN anything to me? I asked how you can explain away scriptural references to soul and spirit, and you answer Philosophical? And I mystify? You and G must be twins. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:47 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Speaking for myself (Lance) I often find it difficult to believe (allowing for my last post to you) that you truly don't understand as much as you indicate through your questions. You reflect a level of 'puzzlement' that mystifies. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:38 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Jonathan, Good to hear from you my friend. I am not taking the time to research your references. However I think I understand what you are saying. I think we are body/soul/spirit just as God as Father/Son/HolySpirit. Three in one. Not three different elements. What is your understanding, if there is no such thing as soul or spirit? Izzy PS Why do you always have to answer for Lance? Cat got his tongue? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:44 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Hi Izzy, Let me jump in here. One thing we always have to be careful of is our blind acceptance of some of our definitions. The soul, or spirit is one of these. When the New Testament writers were writing the NT they had two choices for describing the spiritual: they could either make up new names or use old names, already commonly accepted but with a spin that would set them apart. They chose the second. The concept of soul or spirit that you and Judy have comes completely from Greek philosophy. Whenever you see the word soul or spirit in the Bible you automatically use a skewed definition that is clearly opposite from actual scripture. It is not rooted in scripture at all. In other words, just because Judy gives a verse that uses the word soul or spirit does not in any way prove that they are actual entities separated from the rest of who we are. This is completely opposite of the Hebrew revelation from the Old Testament and leads one into Gnosticism as we can easily see in Judys writings (Gnosticism held that human beings consist of flesh, soul, and spirit (the divine spark), and that humanity is divided into classes representing each of these elements. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0821080.html). We must always be on the lookout for dualisms that are not present. Please see the links below for some more detailed information and word studies. http://www.cresourcei.org/bodysoul.html http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Lance, Im not following your logic. Let me spell it out, since you have not. Do you consider a soul to be a philosophy? Do you consider a spirit to be a poor exegesis? What are you saying they are? And how do you explain away the scriptural references to them? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Linda:I do for the reasons cited:soul (philsophical), spirit (poor exegesis). Judy's is a common misapprehension on both. Judy does some great research. Judy quotes scripture extensively in an attempt to support teachings gleaned from Dake Scofield (sadly). But, I do believe her to be well-intentioned (occasionally). - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 18, 2004 17:38 Subject:
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
jt: Do I recognize the old "divide and conquer" right here on TT? Iz:Be careful she's gonna bite ya. Don't get too comfortable. Judy, You are on a roll, too. Good work. J Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:44 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Iz:Go back to crocheting where you can do more good. Your poor brain's overloaded. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:19 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Well, like ya know; God aint stuck in chronology, Lance. Get it? The Trinity always existed, always will, and nothing is new with that. He is I AM, not I WAS, I AM, and I WILL BE. He is free of time, which you are using to say that He changes, contrary to scripture. (Which He wrote and with which you disagree.) Izzy "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:44 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Please (duh) tell me your meaning. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:44 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance you are stuck in the earthly time warp. God is not. (duh) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:35 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Jt:Will you then explain your understanding of my three illustrations? 1. Cosmos (not eternal) 'New' 2. Incarnation (not eternal) 'New' 3. Humanity (Christ) ascended to the right hand of the Father (not eternal) 'New' - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 08:47 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Wrong, God does not change and neither does His Word but then you don't believe His Word, you would rather rest your faith in the words of theologians who have a "broad" way to heaven. Since God is the Source, the cosmos is not new to Him, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world is not new, and there will be no glorified flesh in heaven .. becauseno flesh gets to glory in His presence. You may have a dynamic understanding Lance but it is not from God. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
jt: I'm still really curious about when God changed and how? I've been reading scripture for a long time and have yet to see a prophet write about God changing - have you? Do you think it possible forsome to bewilfully deceived? Dont feel bad about that, jt. Liberals think the US Consitution is a living, breathing document as well (so they can change the original intent/meaning of it as well as the Bibles.) Izzy I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
Re: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:We do indeed! Want an autographed copy? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:35 Subject: Fw: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) jt Then God's Word can not be trusted because He does not stand by it and if the Word above is wrong then maybe Jesus is not the same yesterday, today, and forever.Maybe He was not the lamb slain before the foundation of the World. Maybe the cross was one big hoax after all ...Lance do you sell your version of scripture at your Bookstore? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. h, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith, evidenced by love and obedience (Works).Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:I'd drop 'em like a hot potatoe for a chance to follow you (Judge) Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:26 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? jt: Cut the hype Lance - you do follow "people" - religious, intellectual, type people who teach at universities. Jt:IFF I were to 'follow' someone it would be someone like yourself who, insofar as I can recall, has never be wrong on anything. Who wouldn't want to follow that kind of person? I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
RE: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Izzy provides some comments regarding philosophers from a godly Believer by the name of Sundar Singh: He thanked God that he had been enabled to go to the West. Before he went, he thought that there must be something in Modernist theories, otherwise so many men would not write so many books. Besides, Christianity had been in force for so many centuries in the West. But when he discovered how busy these scholars were and how much of their knowledge was second-hand and not the fruit of their experience with Christ, he announced that all their speculations would not move him an inch from his faith. Trying to understand spiritual truth through the intellect means increase of self. Men search for God and find Him unknowable... But: He is known through the heart, not through philosophy. The only way for us to understand the infinite God is by becoming infinite and that is impossible. He must become finite and He is so in Jesus. How are we to deal with people who are utterly indifferent to religion? He replied, God Himself can do nothing with such people so what can you and I do? Orthodox and strict Hindus and Mohammedans are better than many of the reformed liberals. The latter are stones in their own community and if they come over into the Christian Church they will be stones there too. Far better a man who is strict in the observance of his own religion. We are called to work for Him. Are we misled by Modernists and Higher Criticism? Is our faith shaken? If we believe that Christ was merely a great man then we have no message for the world. We will have to jump down into Hell to hide ourselves for every shame. We are to be fishers of men and are we still fishermen? The angels would have been glad to preach the Gospel in this world for five minutes, and that would have been enough. But the privilege is not granted to them. Only saved sinners can preach the Gospel. Christianity [spiritual regeneration through Jesus Christ] is the only religion which is universal. http://www.sadhusundarsingh.homestead.com/files/introduction.html jt: I have a question Lance. Does the truth of God's Word mean nothing at all to you unless validated by your favorite theologian? Do you spend any of your time meditatingon what God says?
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:Why would I when I have you to read? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 13:29 Subject: Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:May I (laughingly) suggest that you start your own church? We then, will all fall (statically) in line behind you (You, of course being statically in line with all the truth of Scripture). Problem solved eh? God luv ya Judy! You are one ultra-certainlady. jt: I have a question Lance. Does the truth of God's Word mean nothing at all to you unless validated by your favorite theologian? Do you spend any of your time meditatingon what God says? From: Judy Taylor John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
[TruthTalk] Soul Spirit?
jt: I knew it!! Didn't I just get through saying that a certain personfollows educated men...? and this is right out of the horses mouth... Iz:Be a good 'wifey' and, ask your husband. I think you said he had an education eh? Lance, You are as easy to understand as G. I guess that makes me dense. You wrote below Linda:I do for the reasons cited:soul (philsophical), spirit (poor exegesis). Was that actually supposed to EXPLAIN anything to me? I asked how you can explain away scriptural references to soul and spirit, and you answer Philosophical? And I mystify? You and G must be twins. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:47 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Speaking for myself (Lance) I often find it difficult to believe (allowing for my last post to you) that you truly don't understand as much as you indicate through your questions. You reflect a level of 'puzzlement' that mystifies. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:38 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Jonathan, Good to hear from you my friend. I am not taking the time to research your references. However I think I understand what you are saying. I think we are body/soul/spirit just as God as Father/Son/HolySpirit. Three in one. Not three different elements. What is your understanding, if there is no such thing as soul or spirit? Izzy PS Why do you always have to answer for Lance? Cat got his tongue? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:44 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Hi Izzy, Let me jump in here. One thing we always have to be careful of is our blind acceptance of some of our definitions. The soul, or spirit is one of these. When the New Testament writers were writing the NT they had two choices for describing the spiritual: they could either make up new names or use old names, already commonly accepted but with a spin that would set them apart. They chose the second. The concept of soul or spirit that you and Judy have comes completely from Greek philosophy. Whenever you see the word soul or spirit in the Bible you automatically use a skewed definition that is clearly opposite from actual scripture. It is not rooted in scripture at all. In other words, just because Judy gives a verse that uses the word soul or spirit does not in any way prove that they are actual entities separated from the rest of who we are. This is completely opposite of the Hebrew revelation from the Old Testament and leads one into Gnosticism as we can easily see in Judys writings (Gnosticism held that human beings consist of flesh, soul, and spirit (the divine spark), and that humanity is divided into classes representing each of these elements. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0821080.html). We must always be on the lookout for dualisms that are not present. Please see the links below for some more detailed information and word studies. http://www.cresourcei.org/bodysoul.html http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Lance, Im not following your logic. Let me spell it out, since you have not. Do you consider a soul to be a philosophy? Do you consider a spirit to be a poor exegesis? What are you saying they are? And how do you explain away the scriptural references to them? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soul Spirit? Linda:I do for the reasons cited:soul (philsophical), spirit (poor exegesis). Judy's is a common misapprehension on both. Judy does some great research. Judy quotes scripture extensively in an attempt to support teachings gleaned from Dake Scofield (sadly). But, I do believe her to be well-intentioned (occasionally). - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 18, 2004 17:38 Subject: [TruthTalk]
RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith, evidenced by love and obedience (Works). Terry
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Iz:Amen brother Singh. I've read a good deal by him. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:10 Subject: RE: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Izzy provides some comments regarding philosophers from a godly Believer by the name of Sundar Singh: He thanked God that he had been enabled to go to the West. Before he went, he thought that there must be something in Modernist theories, otherwise so many men would not write so many books. Besides, Christianity had been in force for so many centuries in the West. But when he discovered how busy these scholars were and how much of their knowledge was second-hand and not the fruit of their experience with Christ, he announced that all their speculations would not move him an inch from his faith. Trying to understand spiritual truth through the intellect means increase of self. Men search for God and find Him unknowable... But: He is known through the heart, not through philosophy. The only way for us to understand the infinite God is by becoming infinite and that is impossible. He must become finite and He is so in Jesus." "How are we to deal with people who are utterly indifferent to religion?"He replied, "God Himself can do nothing with such people so what can you and I do? Orthodox and strict Hindus and Mohammedans are better than many of the reformed liberals. The latter are stones in their own community and if they come over into the Christian Church they will be stones there too. Far better a man who is strict in the observance of his own religion." "We are called to work for Him. Are we misled by Modernists and Higher Criticism? Is our faith shaken? If we believe that Christ was merely a great man then we have no message for the world. We will have to jump down into Hell to hide ourselves for every shame. We are to be fishers of men and are we still fishermen? The angels would have been glad to preach the Gospel in this world for five minutes, and that would have been enough. But the privilege is not granted to them. Only saved sinners can preach the Gospel." "Christianity [spiritual regeneration through Jesus Christ] is the only religion which is universal." http://www.sadhusundarsingh.homestead.com/files/introduction.html jt: I have a question Lance. Does the truth of God's Word mean nothing at all to you unless validated by your favorite theologian? Do you spend any of your time meditatingon what God says?
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:I don't expect for you to be able to understand this nor, your newfound friend, Iz. Just move on and ascribe heresy to Lance. I mean he's already Canadian and liberal, at least as you see it. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:07 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? jt: I'm still really curious about when God changed and how? I've been reading scripture for a long time and have yet to see a prophet write about God changing - have you? Do you think it possible forsome to bewilfully deceived? Dont feel bad about that, jt. Liberals think the US Consitution is a living, breathing document as well (so they can change the original intent/meaning of it as well as the Bibles.) Izzy I'm not seekinga pat on the back Lance, John is the disciple, not me. You and I don't even speak the same language and don't forget I'm on the static understanding side ... Jt:What a surprisingly pleasant post. Well done, young lady. Forgot to mention that being on the "static side" does not preclude change. The changes ofexpanding, and growing, however, are in usrather than on God's side because HisTruth does not ever change. Jesus is and has been the same yesterday, today, and forever and God says "I am the Lord, I change not" Trying to spiritualize differences which most oftenis the adversarysowing discord and strife is calling evil good.Spiritual growth should never cause division in Christ because someone who has a heart for truth is able torecognize it even when they do not fully understandit .. Weall press on together toaprehend Christ. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] John writes: Let me take at shot at this one. If I am right, then Lance's comment is not veiled in any kind of mystery. A "dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and His Gospel" tells me that Lance's view is one that is in flux, changing, expanding, growing. The use of the wording "dynamic understanding" would demand a difference of position and opinion among believers and if this dynamic is of God, a differenc of opinion and teaching will exist within the assembly of Saints. We should expect differences. They are of God and are not necessarily evil or even undesirable.A static positioning is a closed system, fully understandable by all of (I assume) an honest heart. Those with this understanding will argue that we can AND MUST be of the same mind and speak the same things on all points of import within the Gospel of Christ.How did I do? Smitty jt: Has Lancegiven you a grade yet John. How did you do? I know you are weighing a lot of things right now. This dynamic understanding was neither taught nor promoted by the writers of the NT. In fact they taught "static understanding" exclusively. You can find it in all of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:1, Romans 12:16-18, Philippians 2:2. The reason we must be of the same mind and speak the same thing is that we should have the "mind of Christ" 1 Corinthians 2:16. which mind is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" which sounds pretty static to me. This is the ONLY way that we will grow into Him in all things. jt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jt:I'm drawing a distinction between a dynamic understanding of the Nature of God and God's Gospel and a static understanding (yours, I believe). Read the three points again with that in mind then, tell me your understanding. thanks It might be better if you explain your definition of dynamic vs static. Are you saying that your gospel has signs following, that is, thesigns Jesus spoke of (the works He did and greater); my understanding of a dynamic gospel is one where the power of God is evident.Static is a form of godliness that denies the power. I doubt we are 'as they say' on the same page. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Iz:Follow the same prescription as given Jt. Take two and call me in the morning. Go watch the Olympics where some second-rate US atheletes are performing. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
jt: Lance you wrote: Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. Are you saying God is the Cosmos which would be pantheism? The incarnation was reality to God before the foundation fo the world Only humanity who have come to the light (ie Believers) are seated in heavenly places in Christ. From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind left the garden with a knowledge of good and evil. Sometime later the law came, and after that, the law was fulfilled. In the meantime, no one was ever able to keep it. It was meant for a people, for a time, for a purpose. Those times are over. Now we live by faith,
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jeff Powers wrote: Purple text this time - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Anyone who cannot preach 'gospel' from the Torah just doesn't understand the Torah. Very good Lance! Terry said, What Jesus was telling the hearers, and us, is that you cannot add Jesus to the old covenant without losing everything. Jesus did not come to patch up something old. He came to make something totally new, something called a Christian, a new creature in Christ. Back up Terry, This is why I insist on a Biblical answer instead of a doctrinal answer. Jesus said no such thing. To make something totally new, this something you call a Christian would bea sin tantamount to the sin of Satan. And that would make Jesus a liar. Terry,can you not see the absurdity of that doctrine? Jeff Jeff: You have me at a disadvantage. I am a simple believer who does not have a handle on what all these religious terms mean. When you say doctrine you use a word that I do not understand. If your problem is that Jesus never used the word "Christian", then substitute "My sheep". I thought I made it clear that I was using my paraphrase. Jesus is not a liar, and neither am I, and the only absurdity I see is insisting that the law still applies to Christians when the Bible is so clear that it does not. Terry
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Oh well Iz... Looks as though Lance has taken his ball and gone home. Not only that he has an "attitude" Heappears to be down on everything American... not just the spiritual. Iz:Follow the same prescription as given Jt. Take two and call me in the morning. Go watch the Olympics where some second-rate US atheletes are performing. Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Well then, just leave it there. No need to jump into water that's too deep for you. Shout if you need a life ring thrown in. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:38 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To:
RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
I can only assume that means you cannot provide a scripture to justify your beliefs. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Well then, just leave it there. No need to jump into water that's too deep for you. Shout if you need a life ring thrown in. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:38 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject God's law and in rejecting God's Law we therefore have to reject ALL notions of sin. Without Torah, how are we to know what sin is? Something you might want to consider Jeff. There was sin and there was a penalty for sin long before Torah. Mankind
RE: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance wrote: Iz:Amen brother Singh. I've read a good deal by him. Izzy responds: Lance, That is good: finally something upon which we can agree. Perhaps Brother Singh can help you to have a more Christ-like attitude than what you have shown below. In the Name of the Lord I call upon you to repent of your pride so that you will not be judged for it. (Izzy)If I may translate: The parables are the Gospel for Dummies who dont get it. (Lance) 1. Are you self-identifying? As I listen to some of you flag-waving nut cases I cannot help but notice what political bondage you are in. biblicist/fundamentalist (read angry) Even a smart mouth like myself doesn't appreciate ignorance from a self-professed 'mature' believer. So does Clarence Thomas for starters. But, I suspect that high court considerations are beyond you backwoods, redneck conservative types. I know that 'scope' is tough for you Limbaughites. Iz:Be a good 'wifey' and, ask your husband. I think you said he had an education eh? Iz:Go back to crocheting where you can do more good. Your poor brain's overloaded. Jt:I don't expect for you to be able to understand this nor, your newfound friend, Iz. Jt:What's this 'blood' fettish thing ya got goin on JT? No. You inhabit 'wrong city' on this issue. He is truly, completely one of us. I Corinthians 1: 18For the word of the cross is (35) foolishness to (36) those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is (37) the power of God. 19For it is written, (38) I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE. 20(39) Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of (40) this age? Has not God (41) made foolish the wisdom of (42) the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God (43) the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, (44) God was well-pleased through the (45) foolishness of the message preached to (46) save those who believe. 22For indeed (47) Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach [3] (48) Christ crucified, (49) to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles (50) foolishness, 24but to those who are (51) the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ (52) the power of God and (53) the wisdom of God. 25Because the (54) foolishness of God is wiser than men, and (55) the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For consider your (56) calling, brethren, that there were (57) not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27but (58) God has chosen the foolish things of (59) the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of (60) the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of (61) the world and the despised God has chosen, (62) the things that are not, so that He may (63) nullify the things that are, 29so that (64) no man may boast before God. 30But by His doing you are in (65) Christ Jesus, who became to us (66) wisdom from God, and (67) righteousness and (68) sanctification, and (69) redemption, 31so that, just as it is written, (70) LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:Judy, Judy, Judy please... stay with what you do best (the misapplication of Scripture). This other stuff could hurt you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:31 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? jt: Lance you wrote: Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. Are you saying God is the Cosmos which would be pantheism? The incarnation was reality to God before the foundation fo the world Only humanity who have come to the light (ie Believers) are seated in heavenly places in Christ. From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin? From my perspective, if we reject Torah then we quite naturally reject
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Well then, just leave it there. No need to jump into water that's too deep for you. Shout if you need a life ring thrown in. jt: You really believe that where you are at is "deep" Lance? You have a lot of faith in all this "education" don't you? Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:Judy, Judy, Judy please... stay with what you do best (the misapplication of Scripture). This other stuff could hurt you. jt: Ifthis "other stuff"means what you have been promoting here - then for the first time today (or any day for that matter) in this area I am able to agree with you Lance. I'll stay with God's Word and leave the "heavy, deeper" stuff to you. jt: Lance you wrote: Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. Are you saying God is the Cosmos which would be pantheism? The incarnation was reality to God before the foundation fo the world Only humanity who have come to the light (ie Believers) are seated in heavenly places in Christ. From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite vow, but went to the Temple and paid the price for several other Nazirs to fulfill their vows. Shaul did this for what reason? To reject Torah? There ain't nobody gonna convince me that Shaul rejected Torah. His actions disprove that doctrine!! Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature Jeff Powers wrote: Lets see now, if I'm understanding this John rejects Torah. So if this is true John, What then is sin?
[TruthTalk] Test
I don't know what is going on but parts of my emails are being gobbled up by some kind of an web pacman before they come back to my computer. Just letting you know what is going on if you receive an odd or misplaced line that is out of context. jt
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Iz:Lighten up! I'da thunk that trailer trash (talk) woulda bin right up your flag wavin' alley. You folks don't seem to mind doing hatchet jobs on fellow believers who are otherwise politically aligned. The charicatures you occasionally offer up are deplorable. I suppose it all depends who's oxe.eh? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:47 Subject: RE: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Lance wrote: Iz:Amen brother Singh. I've read a good deal by him. Izzy responds: Lance, That is good: finally something upon which we can agree. Perhaps Brother Singh can help you to have a more Christ-like attitude than what you have shown below. In the Name of the Lord I call upon you to repent of your pride so that you will not be judged for it. (Izzy)If I may translate: The parables are the Gospel for Dummies who dont get it. (Lance) 1. Are you self-identifying? As I listen to some of you flag-waving nut cases I cannot help but notice what political bondage you are in. biblicist/fundamentalist (read angry) Even a smart mouth like myself doesn't appreciate ignorance from a self-professed 'mature' believer. So does Clarence Thomas for starters. But, I suspect that high court considerations are beyond you backwoods, redneck conservative types. I know that 'scope' is tough for you Limbaughites. Iz:Be a good 'wifey' and, ask your husband. I think you said he had an education eh? Iz:Go back to crocheting where you can do more good. Your poor brain's overloaded. Jt:I don't expect for you to be able to understand this nor, your newfound friend, Iz. Jt:What's this 'blood' fettish thing ya got goin on JT? No. You inhabit 'wrong city' on this issue. He is truly, completely one of us. I Corinthians 1: 18For the word of the cross is (35) foolishness to (36) those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is (37) the power of God. 19For it is written,"(38) I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 20(39) Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of (40) this age? Has not God (41) made foolish the wisdom of (42) the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God (43) the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, (44) God was well-pleased through the (45) foolishness of the message preached to (46) save those who believe. 22For indeed (47) Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach [3] (48) Christ crucified, (49) to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles (50) foolishness, 24but to those who are (51) the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ (52) the power of God and (53) the wisdom of God. 25Because the (54) foolishness of God is wiser than men, and (55) the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For consider your (56) calling, brethren, that there were (57) not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27but (58) God has chosen the foolish things of (59) the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of (60) the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of (61) the world and the despised God has chosen, (62) the things that are not, so that He may (63) nullify the things that are, 29so that (64) no man may boast before God. 30But by His doing you are in (65) Christ Jesus, who became to us (66) wisdom from God, and (67) righteousness and (68) sanctification, and (69) redemption, 31so that, just as it is written, "(70) LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Jt:'Faith'(?) in education. I know education is not the strong suit of the good ol USA but, 'faith ' in it? Uhh no! I do however wish that I had some instead of being the undeducated dolt that I am. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:50 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? You have a lot of faith in all this "education" don't you? Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at it explain how the Pharisee of Pharisee's who studied at Gamaliel's feet would reject God's Torah when it is so plainly clear in the Bible that Shaul both understood who Yeshua is and worked so hard for the salvation of the Gentiles and the Jews. The very same Paul who not only took a Nazarite
[TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN?
Who told you "education is not the strong suit of the good ol USA?" You have an "attitude" toward everything American Lance and it is ungodly, does not say much for your mentors. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:09:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jt:'Faith'(?) in education. I know education is not the strong suit of the good ol USA but, 'faith ' in it? Uhh no! I do however wish that I had some instead of being the undeducated dolt that I am. From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 15:50 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? You have a lot of faith in all this "education" don't you? Lance, God is not the cosmos. God was, is, and ever will be (nothing changed there). I know nothing about the ascent of humanity; could you give me that scripture please? I do know about Believers seated in heavenly places, however. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Iz:I ask again: what of the cosmos, Incarnation and, ascent of humanity to the right hand of God.? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 14:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change (God) Of course God has 'changed'. (Lance) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? What on earth (heaven?) has that statement got to do with mine? You are being coy are you not? Will you say back to me what you believe my meaning to have been? I (Lance, speaking for myself) will then answer. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 12:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Oh, I guess youd better write the Lance Muir version of scripture, since obviously the one God wrote is incorrect. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:39 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? Of course God has 'changed' (allowing for the limitations of human language). Three things that are New even for God: 1. The Cosmos 2. The Incarnation 3. Resurrected, glorified HUMANITY ascending to the right hand of the Father where He, Jesus, continues to mediate on our behalf. This reflects a dynamic rather than a static understanding of our God. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 19, 2004 19:56 Subject: [TruthTalk] WHAT IS SIN? "I amYHVH your God and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already completely destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have scorned my laws and failed to obey them. Now return to me and I will return to you,' says YHVH" Malachi 3:6-7 God has not changed, so what makes anyone think His Law (Torah) has changed? I ask my question again, If you reject God's law then how do you define sin? Secondly, if you reject His law how can you embrace Yeshua? After all who is Yeshua? He is none other than God in the flesh!(John 1:1) It really saddens me to think that people are misled by teachers, preachers, etc. who have been misled by their mentors, who have been misled by their teachers, etc. for nearly 2000 years. This is very odd because I know someone will eventually throw Acts 15 at me. So I'll beat you to the punch and ask that youexplainActs 15:21.And while you're at
[TruthTalk] Lance's sense of 'humour' (?????????)
It was just one of those days when I felt like having a little fun with Iz and Judy. (mostly, at any rate). Fortunately for me I think at least one has a sense of humour. (har de har har) Response: Bang zoom ..to the moon, Lance. enjoy!
[TruthTalk] Lance's sense of 'humour' (?????????)
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It was just one of those days when I felt like having a little fun with Iz and Judy. (mostly, at any rate). Fortunately for me I think at least one has a sense of humour. (har de har har) Response: Bang zoom ..to the moon, Lance. enjoy! So you really arn't sour on everything American Lance - it is all just your sense of humor? You are definitely a strange one... Must be dark humor.
RE: [TruthTalk] Lance's sense of 'humour' (?????????)
Lance, I guess you are the only one who thinks insults (at others) are funny. There is godly humor, and then there is mean-spiritedness. Doesnt say much for your theology. Izzy (Maybe you should run this past your wife if you dont understand it.) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Lance's sense of 'humour' (?) It was just one of those days when I felt like having a little fun with Iz and Judy. (mostly, at any rate). Fortunately for me I think at least one has a sense of humour. (har de har har) Response: Bang zoom ..to the moon, Lance. enjoy!
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
Kool again Smittyson In a message dated 8/21/2004 3:15:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John:Yes indeed. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 20, 2004 17:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16) In a message dated 8/20/2004 4:37:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: believe the 'conscience' is 'constructed' socially. I do not believe that the 'conscience' of humankind is informed by God. Depends on how you define "conscience" or what you include in that concept. There is an emotional trigger within each of us that goes off when we violate our sense of right and wrong. "Our sense of right and wrong" is what, I think, you are referring to and I agree with this. When baseball season comes on, and I coach kids baseball, I often wear the same hat in exactly the same way every time we have a game. When I do not or cannot follow this pattern of activity, I feel bad. -- just as I do when I harshly criticize by wife. That is the socialisation of the conscience (correct?). But the trigger is a part of our creation. And it has it's limitations. It never goes off when we fail to do something that is "wrong." I know it might sound silly, but a bank robbers never wakes up feeling bad because he did not rob some bank yesterday. This trigger only works one way -- in support of perceived goodness. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
We'll go with ... brown. John In a message dated 8/21/2004 4:18:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John writes: I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture. I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well. jt: I didn't post references but they are there. Understanding the fall of man and why God instituted the Mosaic Law to begin with is a good start and from there to New Creation realities. What being born again means and the outworking in a person's life ie walking after the Spirit rather than fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. Uh? As far as "another way?" This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law. jt: What New Law? There is no "new Law" What is new is the Covenant or Testament. It was with Moses and included the ritual or Levitical Law. It is now through Christ and through Him we are to walk after the Spirit and fulfill the "royal law" - Same law. Love fulfills it. "Where then is our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith." (Ro 3:27) Paul contrasts the old with the new...obviously. So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost? jt: Yes. There are not two gospels. One for this felow (and 3rd world countries) and another for those of us who live in the USA. True -- just one gospel and just one concern on the part of God -- a concern for the heart of man. The only things a Gentile can do by "nature,' having never heard the requirements of law, are those things that emanate from the heart. Jeff mentioned to Terry that he (Jeff) wanted a biblical answer, not a doctrinal one. Although I thought Terry was talking about a biblical text, still the concern of Jeff is mine, as well. I just say it differently. I really ask for a biblical passage that speaks specifically and succinctly to the point of any conclusion that is of Christian origin or influence. How have you dealt with my comments regarding Ro 2:12-16? You have clearly and undeniably added words not found in the text in order to incorporate this text into your system of belief. As a result, you disregard any exegetical analysis of the text -- something I have found over the years to be common among "holiness" students (they all do this) -- and continue to pit one scripture against another rather than allowing scripture to define scripture. Not according to Paul in v 15-16. And how is he saved -- through Jesus Christ. So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer. Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me. jt: Yours is not a biblical teaching John. To teach that someone can be saved through Christ apart from conviction, confession, and repentance is to walk in massive denial... Stop right there, young lady (used to say that to my oldest daughter all the time). The text says what it says. The massive denial, here, is your refusal to allow this passage, as it is written, to influence your thinking or amend your Calvinistic theology in any way whatsoever. (even to the point of negating the ministry of John the Baptist who came to "prepare the way of the Lord" exhorting people to repent and telling them that if they did not the axe would be laid to the root of the tree (them). Noone gets to carry all their carnal mess into Christ. Not even the gentile in V.15-16.and to go on and claim that this man fulfilled God's Law while still in his sin even more preposterous. All of the immediate above text (yours) is written because of your refusal to accept what Paul says in 2:12-16, allowing that passage to stand as it is written. If you can add words to the text to get it to say what you want it to say, where do we stop? And when I say "refusal," maybe that is too strong. I know that you are doing the best that you can. You do not simply do not see the bias that contributes to your point of view. I have bias. Lance does. Iz does. ..we all do. speaking as a counselor, and this is the first time I am doing this on this forum, we (all) will do what we have to do to protect ourselves from our insecurities. I would have never made it ten minutes into a forum such as this when I was in my twenties. I was wedded to my doctrinal base and on the rare occasion that one more gifted than myself in the science of argument could put me into a corner, well, I would just blow up. Now-a-days, I just change my mind and move on to the next subject. It is so much simpler. My faith is in a Christ (and not what I beleive or think I beieive) who knows that I am trying the best I can; that if I am wrong about something, it might be because of my IQ or poor training in thinking; it is possible that I am not as good a debater as I think I am -- maybe I think too highly of myself - on and on, but I am forgiven and this forgiveness gives me
Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16
In a message dated 8/21/2004 4:43:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Take a look at the gospel(s) being preached:narcissistic, health wealth, individualistic, deistic (founding fathers), gnostic/dualistic, biblicist/fundamentalist (read angry), religious, tradition-bound, non-open structured (static), -anyone want to add to the list The element of surprise (who is present and who is absent) is underplayed.Some persons (today) have a living relationship with the Living God who do not (I repeat NOT) name the name of Christ as some of the above-named gospels would call for. Some come to this in in ways unknown to me or to you all over the world over all time. Let's be fair and add "liberal (having no structure) and meat headedness (having no clue). Johann Schmidtsen
Re: [TruthTalk] Christians' authority over nature (Romans 1.12-16)
In a message dated 8/21/2004 5:48:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John: When baseball season comes on, and I coach kids baseball, I often wear the same hat in exactly the same way every time we have a game. When I do not or cannot follow this pattern of activity, I feel bad. jt: Some social or obsessive compulsive thing The really fantastic thing about this obsessive complusive thing is that it WORKS. We win every single time I wear the hat exactly right -- every time. Say it with me now -- "I believe." Reverend Smithson
