Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
You are 'kin' to Rosanne Roseannadanna.There is either a misapplication or misapprehension of the heart of a matter under discussion. One major difference between yourself an RR is that when, as I see it, the matter is clarified, RR said either 'never mind' or 'well, it's always something', you just press on and on and on and onutterly convinced that you get it and we don't. A recent example of this was your conversation with John. You had a similar engagement with Bill Taylor (perfectionism). I recently inserted a quotation from KB that addressed this very matter under 'ADDENDUM'. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 16:00 Subject: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Lance wrote: I neither call David a liar nor do I believe that he is one. I'd be more inclined to self-deception as a description. I'd say that that description is broadly applicable. This is an interesting characterization of me. So you believe me to be self-deceived? Normally we don't follow any ad-hominem lines of discussion, but you seemed to present this not as an emotional fall-back, but as a logical belief which you hold. I would be very interested in hearing you develop this thesis, either on or off the list. I prefer for it to be on the list to hear what others think, but if you would be more comfortable and direct off-list, then let's do that. How about it? Do you think you can explain to me how I have deceived myself? About what have I deceived myself? This sounds very interesting. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:30:51 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The below would be the essence of what you're saying, Judy. We don't need God's law anymore, it was abolished by Christ on the cross. We certainly aren't fearing God when we aren't obeying, instead making up our own man-made ways of worshipping Him, rather than the way He told us to do it. We've figured out and our plan is so much better than His, wouldn't you agree? Sounds like it to me, otherwise, why not do as He says to do in His commands?? Kay Why would God,restore the old carnal regulations and practices when something far better, with transcendent promises, has arrived? God has made everything new! The new order eclipses the old regulations and practices, which were only shadows of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1). To put it another way, why would God return to the Old after having created the New? This would be regression, not progression. Or, why would God retreat by reinstating the carnal when He has resurrected the spiritual? Why would any believer want to surrender his spiritual status in this new age and return to the carnal, external, and legalistic arrangement under Moses? Well, why?
Re: [TruthTalk] Arafat is gone
'that we (should read I}are (am) confident will never take place, right?' I do believe Slade can distinguish between 'wish' and 'hope'.. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 16:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Arafat is gone Slade wrote: The obvious truth is that we should hope all come to embrace the God of Israel. There are two kinds of hope. There is the hope that is a kind of wish, which is what you seem to be talking about here. For example, God wishes that everyone would believe upon him and trust in him. However, there is another kind of hope that has an assurance and expectation. For example, I hope for the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, and I hope for the eternal judgment. This kind of hope does not seem to apply to your concept above. I mean, we should not hope for something that we are confident will never take place, right? Do you understand what I am trying to say? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
John, start with Acts 15. Realizing that Gentiles coming into the faith presented a problem for fellowship with Jewish believers, the council established the BARE MINIMUM of requirements in order that Gentiles could fellowship with Jews. Then verse 21 tells us that in time these gentiles would learn Torah. This evening I'll try to expandon this. I don't have time this morning. Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 21:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands In a message dated 11/15/2004 5:09:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And there is no differencebetween God's commandments and Jesus' commandments.1) Does not your view of the commandments include holy days, and imperatives that involve all of the Mosaical Law with the exception of the sacrifical laws? 2) Since I am a Gentile -- where in scripture is Mosaical Law bound upon me in Jesus?3) Am I nonetheless a brother in Christ ?John
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
those under the Mosaic Covenant which has been fulfilled in Christ are to be one with us "in Him" and walk after the Spirit. And here's a place where you're wrong twice. I will explain the fist part now, and the second later in a different email after work. "They" (Jews)are not to join "us" (Christian) in Him." The "Us" (Christian) are to join the "They" (Jews) "in Him." Read Romans 11 again. Which was does the sap travel??? Secondly, your concept of "after the Spirit" is very different from mine, and I will et to that later. -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Sorry. What is clear to one is not clear to another. I see ONE HOUSE and ONE servant (Moses) and ONE Son (Yeshua). God is the builder of the ONE house. - slade PLUS I really wish you would LISTEN to what people say, Judy. NEVER has ANYONE said "613 Commands plus Jesus" STOP accusing people of this.Your trump card does not work in Tic-Tac-Toe! -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Hughes JonathanSent: Monday, 15 November, 2004 10.55To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Hi Judy, for once I am actually in agreement with you here. But I am left confused. On one hand you point to Christ as the fulfillment of the law, that we do not have the law plus Jesus. From past posts of yourswhich seemed to place primacy on the law and types I would have thought you would be more supportive of Suzy's position. It appears that I was wrong in thinking this of you. What I am now trying to understand is why you still think we are under the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy but not under the laws of Deuteronomy. Please understand that I am honestly attempting to understand you here, not to mock you. I have no follow-up post to slam you regardless of what your answer is. I am attempting to put together why from my perspective there seems to be a disconnect. Basically, why are the blessings and curses not fulfilled in Christ when the law was? Can we separate them out so that one still applies? Your answer may be that the law was a tutor to lead us to Christ but that the blessings/curses have a different purpose and therefore are still in effect. By the way I think that your'two covenants/houses' analogy is quite good. Jonathan Hughes "Therefore holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house. For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are IF we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end" Judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, I think a lot of problems of understanding happen when we do not define our terms in mutually agreeable ways. For example, I understand Levitical law to be more than just ceremonial law. You seem to see it differently. You wrote: Judy wrote:The Levitical or Ceremonial law is what Christ fulfilled butGod's moral standard or moral law still stands and this is what we are judged by in the Last Day. I consider the following part of the Levitical law: Leviticus 19:17-18(17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. (18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. These commandments are moral, aren't they? The biggest problem I have about this idea of differentiating "moral" law from "ceremonial" law is the fourth commandment, keep the seventh day sabbath. Is this law "ceremonial" or "moral"? Maybe you can answer this first. I'm out of time right now anyway. Peace be with you. David Miller. jt: When I say "Ceremonial Law" I believe you know what I mean David -The Levitical priesthood, the Temple with it's ritual and sacrifices and all of the feasts which were a shadow of what was to come. As for Commandments, if you want to be technical about it -there is no new Commandment, they have all been there since the beginning and this includes love (see 1 John 3:11, 2 John 5, Lev 19:18) because God does not change and neither does His standard for righteousness and holiness. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
DAVID MILLER: This is what I'm meaning. SOMETIMES you are a sophisticated version of Judy. One (this one) occasionally 'wishes' , not hopes, to say: Enough Already! - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 05:30 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands those under the Mosaic Covenant which has been fulfilled in Christ are to be one with us "in Him" and walk after the Spirit. And here's a place where you're wrong twice. I will explain the fist part now, and the second later in a different email after work. "They" (Jews)are not to join "us" (Christian) in Him." The "Us" (Christian) are to join the "They" (Jews) "in Him." Read Romans 11 again. Which was does the sap travel??? Secondly, your concept of "after the Spirit" is very different from mine, and I will et to that later. -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:30:23 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: those under the Mosaic Covenant which has been fulfilled in Christ are to be one with us "in Him" and walk after the Spirit. And here's a place where you're wrong twice. I will explain the fist part now, and the second later in a different email after work. "They" (Jews)are not to join "us" (Christian) in Him." The "Us" (Christian) are to join the "They" (Jews) "in Him." Read Romans 11 again. Which was does the sap travel??? jt: The point I was making was not who was first Slade, it was that Christ has broken down the wall of partition and made every nation of "one blood" - If you are so proud of your Jewishness that you want to keep making that a distinction, then this is your sin. In Romans 11 Israel is the natural branch which has been cut off because of unbelief so if we were depending on Israel for sap we would be in sad shape. ButIsrael is not the root -Jesus is the rootand He is no longer exclusive. We don't bear the root, He bears us - that is, ALL of us and He is no respecter of any man's person. judyt Secondly, your concept of "after the Spirit" is very different from mine, and I will et to that later. -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:51:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVID MILLER: This is what I'm meaning. SOMETIMES you are a sophisticated version of Judy. One (this one) occasionally 'wishes' , not hopes, to say: Enough Already! jt: You certainly are full of yourself Lance Muir. Had you ever in your wildest dreams considered the possibility as wild as it may seem thatJudy and her sophisticated version may not be quite so blind and deaf as you suppose? God will be God you know From: Slade Henson those under the Mosaic Covenant which has been fulfilled in Christ are to be one with us "in Him" and walk after the Spirit. And here's a place where you're wrong twice. I will explain the fist part now, and the second later in a different email after work. "They" (Jews)are not to join "us" (Christian) in Him." The "Us" (Christian) are to join the "They" (Jews) "in Him." Read Romans 11 again. Which was does the sap travel??? Secondly, your concept of "after the Spirit" is very different from mine, and I will et to that later. -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
'may not be quite so blind and deaf as you (I) suppose?' Yes it has.The point stands or falls based on it's intrinsic truthfulness. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 06:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:51:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVID MILLER: This is what I'm meaning. SOMETIMES you are a sophisticated version of Judy. One (this one) occasionally 'wishes' , not hopes, to say: Enough Already! jt: You certainly are full of yourself Lance Muir. Had you ever in your wildest dreams considered the possibility as wild as it may seem thatJudy and her sophisticated version may not be quite so blind and deaf as you suppose? God will be God you know From: Slade Henson those under the Mosaic Covenant which has been fulfilled in Christ are to be one with us "in Him" and walk after the Spirit. And here's a place where you're wrong twice. I will explain the fist part now, and the second later in a different email after work. "They" (Jews)are not to join "us" (Christian) in Him." The "Us" (Christian) are to join the "They" (Jews) "in Him." Read Romans 11 again. Which was does the sap travel??? Secondly, your concept of "after the Spirit" is very different from mine, and I will et to that later. -- slade
[TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish'
When I initially 'page through' a book I look first at: the table of contents, footnotes, chapter notes, endnotes, indices, bibliography, author bio (CV), fly leaf summary, preface (to whom is she indebted?) and the introduction. Thisfacilitates an understanding of how she came by what she's going to tell me about. My 'wish', should any choose to make it come true, is that you would provide a listing of (1) authors (1) titles that influence you then, say why. (annotated bibliography). I'm not just playing 'curious George' here. Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:52:21 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: since the cross we are capable of fulfilling the moral law through Him." "Unbelief will certainly keep us from fulfilling God's moral law " Slade: What does this mean, Judy,in the sense of action on the part of redeemed humanity? Are we simply to "believe" and we do all that's necessary under the Moral Code? jt: Slade The goal of the instruction is "love from a pure heart" and at the beginningwe have neither. Our problem is is one ofthe"heart"rather than with "activity" because we are by nature children of wrath and we do not want to come to the light so that our deeds can be made manifest. We find it easy to pray token prayers and to make a good religious show after the flesh making standards by whichwe judge other peoplebut God weighs the heart and/or motives.So walking after, or being led by God's Spirit means that we walk in the light as He (Jesus) is in the light. We keep short accounts with God and deal with sin as it is revealed to usby the indwelling Spirit. It is taking our thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ and renewingour minds by the washing of the water of the Word. All of this is paramount because faith works by love and without faith it is impossible to please Him. The opposite is an evil heart of unbelief. jt: "Faith was necessary under the law also and grace must have been there; they were either blessed or cursed according to their choices in life" Are you able to prove Grace existed then? Please use addresses.-- slade jt: My definition of grace is the power to do as we ought rather than something that covers sin so that we don't have to deal with it. Israel didn't have the indwelling Spirit (Promise)the way we do on this side of the cross but God made provision through the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system which was His grace for that generation and when they were obedient from the heart they walked in Hisblessings - disobedience brought the curse as it does today. judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:31:09 -0500 "Hughes Jonathan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Judy, Thank you for your quick reply. I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly before I leave this topic alone. So often on this forum I am guilty of jumping to conclusions about what others think. OftenI am only creating a parody of what they actually believe. While it may lead to a few funny/angry posts it does tend to hinder dialogue rather than contribute to it. jt: Whether or not we are in complete agreement when all is said and done Jonathan, I do appreciate your willingness to try andunderstand what I'm about and I thank you for that. In your response you only referred to blessing/cursing in the passage you quote from Galatians 3. Would it be safe for me to think that you include the blessing/cursing of Deuteronomy within the concept/category of moral law, and not in the category of Levitical law? jt: Yes.In Deuteronomy God refers to the diseases ofEgypt which were well before the Law of Moses was given at Sinai. If this is true, would you be saying that while the Levitical law has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ,moral law, which includes the concepts of blessing and cursing, still affects us today? jt: Yes. In Christ we have everythingnecessary to overcome and walk in God's blessing including a cleansed conscience which was not available underLevitical law. Though divine healing was there for them and it is for us as well as we walk in repentance and learn to love. A few other questions that would help me clarify your position: 1) Would itbe true that while only Christ could fulfill the Levitical Law, all of us are capable of fulfilling the moral law? jt: Yes. Only He was without spot or blemish, not having any inheritance in the first Adam - and since the cross we are capable of fulfilling the moral law through Him. 2) Does the same 'thing' that kept Israel from fulfilling the Levitical law also keep us from fulfilling God's moral law? jt: Unbelief will certainly keep us from fulfilling God's moral law and this is a constant battle because we have an enemy who has been around for a long time and who knows lots of tricks and God allows us to be tested but not beyond what we are able to bear. 3)Does the same grace of God that enables us to fulfill the Levitical law also enable us to
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:19:42 -0500 "Jeff Powers" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, start with Acts 15. Realizing that Gentiles coming into the faith presented a problem for fellowship with Jewish believers, the council established the BARE MINIMUM of requirements in order that Gentiles could fellowship with Jews. Then verse 21 tells us that in time these gentiles would learn Torah. This evening I'll try to expandon this. I don't have time this morning. Jeff jt: Don't think so Jeff, the problem was the Judaisers who followed Paul and Barnabus constantly spying out their liberty in Christ and who wanted to put theGentile believers under the law of Moses by circumcizing them. I know you don't see this as a problem but the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 did and so did Paul when he wrote the book of Galatians. Moses being read in Synagogues every week means just that. It does not mean that Gentiles were required to memorize all of theTorah.Anywaythe minds of the Jewish people outside of Christ are hardened with a veil that is only removed in Him so that they have no understanding. (2 Cor 3:14) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 11/15/2004 5:09:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:And there is no difference between God's commandments and Jesus' commandments.1) Does not your view of the commandments include holy days, and imperatives that involve all of the Mosaical Law with the exception of the sacrifical laws? 2) Since I am a Gentile -- where in scripture is Mosaical Law bound upon me in Jesus?3) Am I nonetheless a brother in Christ ?John
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Uh-oh. What did Lance say?? I must have lost it...sometimes it gets hard to follow these threads. K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 15 November, 2004 21.53To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 CommandsIn a message dated 11/15/2004 5:30:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Too cool! I can do whatever I want and live however I choose 'cuz I'mcovered by graceK.You offer a biblical arugment, the same argument, Paul had to deal with in Romans 6:1 which tells me that Lance is on the right track. John the Logical
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Hmm...why then, Terry, does God repeatedly say it was for the "foreigner" among them as well? You mention feasts, sacrifices, tithing, and Sabbath. Does this mean we no longer need to tithe or keep the Sabbath? What about the feasts? God says this is a forever commandment regarding Passover, throughout all your generations and that it is for the stranger as well. How come for Sukkot, it was done then, but it isn't done now, but it will be done again in the Kingdom? Do we get a break from these wonderful Feasts and times of joy and fellowship? If we're to do what Jesus did, how come He celebrated these Feasts and we don't have to? How come Paul continued celebrating the Feasts and the Sabbath? Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Monday, 15 November, 2004 15.57To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 CommandsSlade Henson wrote: Go back and read that, Judy. Jesus says TWO commandsLove GOD with all your heart, soul, and mind and Love your neighbor as yourself. Now, go check out the 613. Every single one of them have to do with either loving God or loving your neighbor. So...can we choose how to love God on our own, or do we choose how to love Him by the way He says to? Kay===Sorry Kay, but I am afraid that you are missing something very important. The original laws were for the children of Israel (lev.27:34).The two commands are for followers of Christ, no matter what their linage (Whosoever will ) Surely that should convince you that there have to be differences. God did not doctor up the old covenant. He made a new one.The original commands contained stuff about feasts and sacrifices and tithing and keeping the Sabbath. The new commands do not.The original commands made it a sin to murder or commit adultery.The new commands make it a sin to even entertain such thoughts in your mind.The new has replaced the old, but nothing has been lost except that that is no longer necessary, and nothing has been added, except that which is necessary to show the mind of Christ. For example, Christ was our sacrifice, so those who trust Him no longer need bring sheep to a Priest. That is over. Deleted. Added was the intent of the heart . God always looks at the heart, so it naturally follows that desiring to murder some one of His creations is just as evil as doing the deed. That is clarified in the new law.According to the Bible, no one could ever keep the old law, so I would think you would rejoice at it's demise instead of clinging to it as if it still had some value. Everything you need to please the Lord is still there in the two that Jesus gave us .I tried to get Suzy to think about that, but she responded so fast that it is obvious she did not dwell on it much. I hope you will mull it over a little longer.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
To add to David's post... Lev. 19 begins with Be Holy, because I AM Holy. Then it tells you how to BE holy. It goes through chapter 20 and ends withBe Holy, because I AM holy. Interesting. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, 15 November, 2004 18.09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Judy, I think a lot of problems of understanding happen when we do not define our terms in mutually agreeable ways. For example, I understand Levitical law to be more than just ceremonial law. You seem to see it differently. You wrote: Judy wrote: The Levitical or Ceremonial law is what Christ fulfilled but God's moral standard or moral law still stands and this is what we are judged by in the Last Day. I consider the following part of the Levitical law: Leviticus 19:17-18 (17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. (18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. These commandments are moral, aren't they? The biggest problem I have about this idea of differentiating moral law from ceremonial law is the fourth commandment, keep the seventh day sabbath. Is this law ceremonial or moral? Maybe you can answer this first. I'm out of time right now anyway. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Keep reading, Judy...Hebrews 10:28 Someone who disregards the Torah of Moses is put to death without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. The new was made fuller. For instanceDon't commit adultery. (old) If you even lust (think about it) you have committed it in your heart. (new). Don't murder. (old) If you hate, you've done it. (new) The Old wasn't carnal...it taught man what was carnal about him so he could change it. Man remains carnal today. You are confusing the meaning of legalism with obedience and what God says is how a holy people are to live and be a light to others. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004 04.26To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:30:51 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The below would be the essence of what you're saying, Judy. We don't need God's law anymore, it was abolished by Christ on the cross. We certainly aren't fearing God when we aren't obeying, instead making up our own man-made ways of worshipping Him, rather than the way He told us to do it. We've figured out and our plan is so much better than His, wouldn't you agree? Sounds like it to me, otherwise, why not do as He says to do in His commands?? Kay Why would God,restore the old carnal regulations and practices when something far better, with transcendent promises, has arrived? God has made everything new! The new order eclipses the old regulations and practices, which were only shadows of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1). To put it another way, why would God return to the Old after having created the New? This would be regression, not progression. Or, why would God retreat by reinstating the carnal when He has resurrected the spiritual? Why would any believer want to surrender his spiritual status in this new age and return to the carnal, external, and legalistic arrangement under Moses? Well, why?
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Judy... That was NOT the problem. I think it's been said repeatedly. The four "rules" given were what they HAD to do in order to be granted entry into synagogues. Moses being read in the synagogues was very important, Judy. Moses was being and taught in the synagogues (same as today) and slowly, the people would HEAR (shema) and LISTEN, and OBEY. They were babes and couldn't handle a ton of rules on conduct and holiness before God. They needed to be spoon-fed slowly. Same as people today. Not much has changed. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004 07.02To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:19:42 -0500 "Jeff Powers" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, start with Acts 15. Realizing that Gentiles coming into the faith presented a problem for fellowship with Jewish believers, the council established the BARE MINIMUM of requirements in order that Gentiles could fellowship with Jews. Then verse 21 tells us that in time these gentiles would learn Torah. This evening I'll try to expandon this. I don't have time this morning. Jeff jt: Don't think so Jeff, the problem was the Judaisers who followed Paul and Barnabus constantly spying out their liberty in Christ and who wanted to put theGentile believers under the law of Moses by circumcizing them. I know you don't see this as a problem but the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 did and so did Paul when he wrote the book of Galatians. Moses being read in Synagogues every week means just that. It does not mean that Gentiles were required to memorize all of theTorah.Anywaythe minds of the Jewish people outside of Christ are hardened with a veil that is only removed in Him so that they have no understanding. (2 Cor 3:14) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 11/15/2004 5:09:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:And there is no difference between God's commandments and Jesus' commandments.1) Does not your view of the commandments include holy days, and imperatives that involve all of the Mosaical Law with the exception of the sacrifical laws? 2) Since I am a Gentile -- where in scripture is Mosaical Law bound upon me in Jesus?3) Am I nonetheless a brother in Christ ?John
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Lance, I believe it was Emily Latella, another Gilda Radner character, that said Never Mind. You are right about RR saying It's always something. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:20:58 -0500 You are 'kin' to Rosanne Roseannadanna.There is either a misapplication or misapprehension of the heart of a matter under discussion. One major difference between yourself an RR is that when, as I see it, the matter is clarified, RR said either 'never mind' or 'well, it's always something', you just press on and on and on and onutterly convinced that you get it and we don't. A recent example of this was your conversation with John. You had a similar engagement with Bill Taylor (perfectionism). I recently inserted a quotation from KB that addressed this very matter under 'ADDENDUM'. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 16:00 Subject: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Lance wrote: I neither call David a liar nor do I believe that he is one. I'd be more inclined to self-deception as a description. I'd say that that description is broadly applicable. This is an interesting characterization of me. So you believe me to be self-deceived? Normally we don't follow any ad-hominem lines of discussion, but you seemed to present this not as an emotional fall-back, but as a logical belief which you hold. I would be very interested in hearing you develop this thesis, either on or off the list. I prefer for it to be on the list to hear what others think, but if you would be more comfortable and direct off-list, then let's do that. How about it? Do you think you can explain to me how I have deceived myself? About what have I deceived myself? This sounds very interesting. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
I tried several times to copy and paste from the web site and for some reason, it wasn't working. So I copied them myself. Sorry it took so long. I would assume there are going to be some terms in this list that people may not understand, but we can give explanations. One thing I would like to mention is number 127. We actually know a couple who did this. They were married many years ago, had children, got a divorce. The wifewas withsomeone else, had a child, and then broke up with him. The wife then said "the Lord toldme"; she should obey Him and go back to her previous husband. I asked her about Deut. 24:4. I did not know the reason WHY God says not to do this. I do now. It turned very nasty. I guess God has more wisdom that we do Kay 119 Each man must give a half shekel annually. Ex. 30:13 120. Courts must calculate to determine when a new month begins. Ex. 12:2 121. To afflict and cry out before God in times of catastrophe. Num. 10:9 122. To marry a wife by means of ketubah and kiddushin. Deut. 22:13 123. Not to have relations with women not thus married. Deut. 23:18 124. Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations form your wife. Ex. 21:10 125. To have children with one's wife. Gen. 1:28 126. To issue a divorce by means of a "get" document. Deut. 24:1 127. A man must not remarry his wife after she has married someone else. Deut. 24:4 128. To do yibum (marry childless brother's widow) Deut. 25:5 129. To do chalitzah (freeing a widow from yibum) Deut. 25:9 130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed. Deut 25:5 131. The court must fine one who seduces a maiden. Ex. 22:15-16 132. The rapist must marry the maiden (if she chooses) Deut. 22:29 133. He is not allowed to divorce her. Deut. 22: 29 134. The slanderer must remain married to his wife. Deut. 22:19 135. He must not divorce her. Deut. 22:19 136.To fulfill the laws of the Sotah. Num. 5:30 137. Not to put oil in her meal offering. Num. 5:15 138. Not to put frankincense on her meal offering. Num. 5:15
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Thanks three-named mystery man. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Lance, I believe it was Emily Latella, another Gilda Radner character, that said Never Mind. You are right about RR saying It's always something. From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:20:58 -0500 You are 'kin' to Rosanne Roseannadanna.There is either a misapplication or misapprehension of the heart of a matter under discussion. One major difference between yourself an RR is that when, as I see it, the matter is clarified, RR said either 'never mind' or 'well, it's always something', you just press on and on and on and onutterly convinced that you get it and we don't. A recent example of this was your conversation with John. You had a similar engagement with Bill Taylor (perfectionism). I recently inserted a quotation from KB that addressed this very matter under 'ADDENDUM'. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 16:00 Subject: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Lance wrote: I neither call David a liar nor do I believe that he is one. I'd be more inclined to self-deception as a description. I'd say that that description is broadly applicable. This is an interesting characterization of me. So you believe me to be self-deceived? Normally we don't follow any ad-hominem lines of discussion, but you seemed to present this not as an emotional fall-back, but as a logical belief which you hold. I would be very interested in hearing you develop this thesis, either on or off the list. I prefer for it to be on the list to hear what others think, but if you would be more comfortable and direct off-list, then let's do that. How about it? Do you think you can explain to me how I have deceived myself? About what have I deceived myself? This sounds very interesting. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish'
Two posts, two smiles. Who can ask for more? Answer my 'wish' and I'll answer your question. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:44 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish' Lance, do you have a web page for your bookstore? I would like to get a better feel for the stuff you sell. Curious Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish' Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:32:59 -0500 When I initially 'page through' a book I look first at: the table of contents, footnotes, chapter notes, endnotes, indices, bibliography, author bio (CV), fly leaf summary, preface (to whom is she indebted?) and the introduction. This facilitates an understanding of how she came by what she's going to tell me about. My 'wish', should any choose to make it come true, is that you would provide a listing of (1) authors (1) titles that influence you then, say why. (annotated bibliography). I'm not just playing 'curious George' here. Lance -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish'
Lance, do you have a web page for your bookstore? I would like to get a better feel for the stuff you sell. Curious Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish' Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:32:59 -0500 When I initially 'page through' a book I look first at: the table of contents, footnotes, chapter notes, endnotes, indices, bibliography, author bio (CV), fly leaf summary, preface (to whom is she indebted?) and the introduction. This facilitates an understanding of how she came by what she's going to tell me about. My 'wish', should any choose to make it come true, is that you would provide a listing of (1) authors (1) titles that influence you then, say why. (annotated bibliography). I'm not just playing 'curious George' here. Lance -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk]139 - 175 of 613 Commands
Question: Are these all done away with since we're in the New Kay 139 Not to have relations with your mother Lev. 18:7 140 Not to have relations with your father's wife Lev. 18:8 141 Not to have relations with your sister Lev. 18:9 142 Not to have relations with your father's wife's daughter Lev. 18:11 143 Not to have relations with your son's daughter Lev. 18:10 144 Not to have relations with your daughter Lev. 18:10 145 Not to have relations with your daughter's daughter Lev. 18:10 146 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter Lev. 18:17 147 Not to have relations with a woman and her son's daughter Lev. 18:17 148 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter Lev. 18:17 149 Not to have relations with your father's sister Lev. 18:12 150 Not to have relations with your mother's sister Lev. 18:13 151 Not to have relations with your father's brother's wife Lev. 18:14 152 Not to have relations with your son's wife Lev. 18:15 153 Not to have relations with your brother's wife Lev. 18:16 154 Not to have relations with your wife's sister Lev. 18:18 155 A man must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 156 A woman must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 157 Not to have homosexual relations Lev. 18:22 158 Not to have homosexual relations with your father Lev. 18:7 159 Not to have homosexual relations with your father's brother Lev. 18:14 160 Not to have relations with a married woman Lev. 18:20 161 Not to have relations with a menstrually impure woman Lev. 18:19 162 Not to marry non-Jews Deut. 7:3 163 Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:4 164 Don't keep a third generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people Deut. 23:8-9 165 Not to refrain from marrying a third generation Edomite convert Deut. 23:8-9 166 Not to let a mamzer marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:3 167 Not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:2 168 Not to castrate any male (including animals) Lev. 22:24 169 The High Priest must not marry a widow Lev. 21:14 170 The High Priest must not have relations with a widow even outside of marriage Lev. 21:15 171 The High Priest must marry a virgin maiden Lev. 21:13 172 A Kohen must not marry a divorcee Lev. 21:7 173 A Kohen must not marry a zonah (a woman who had forbidden relations) Lev. 21:7 174 A priest must not marry a chalalah (party to or product of 169-172) Lev. 21:7 175 Not to make pleasurable contact with any forbidden woman Lev. 18:6
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
In a message dated 11/15/2004 8:05:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: also, someone notice/d that KDavid's lyric in Ps 32, below, is in the future tense of necessity the notion presentd by DavidM, below, is myth this is not a personal pejorative indictment it's an objective factual observation Additionally, a comparison of Ps 7 complete with the arrogance of the self-righteous in stark contrast to the wording of one who is suddenly and completely humbled by the fact of sin in his life (Ps 51) and in the presense of a merciful God. J
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Slade Henson wrote: Hmm...why then, Terry, does God repeatedly say it was for the "foreigner" among them as well? You mention feasts, sacrifices, tithing, and Sabbath. Does this mean we no longer need to tithe or keep the Sabbath? What about the feasts? God says this is a forever commandment regarding Passover, throughout all your generations and that it is for the stranger as well. How come for Sukkot, it was done then, but it isn't done now, but it will be done again in the Kingdom? Do we get a break from these wonderful Feasts and times of joy and fellowship? If we're to do what Jesus did, how come He celebrated these Feasts and we don't have to? How come Paul continued celebrating the Feasts and the Sabbath? Kay Mornin' Kay. Strange as it seems, forever does not always mean forever. If you buy a house and sign a contract with a thirty year mortgage, and make payments every month for thirty years, the house is yours, If you only make payments for six months, you will be evicted. The thirty year contract now means nothing, since you have broken the contract. Same with a covenant. Good forever, or until broken. Since I am not a Jew, and since Leviticus says the law was only for the Jews, please tell me why I should be bound by your laws. Once you figure that one out, please tell me why you should be stuck with regulations that do not apply to me if God loves us both equally. Y'all need to do some serious questioning of your position. How to tithe to a priesthood that no longer exists would be a good place to start, because if you fail to tithe to the priests you break the whole law. With the laws that Jesus gave us, that presents no problem. Tithing is not required under the new covenant. We give with a cheerful heart, not because it is compulsory. It's all in the book. You can read it for yourself. Just remember that no matter how confused you may get, we love you anyway. :-) Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
Kay, I know a woman who divorced her first husband then married another man. She and the 2nd man have been divorced and remarried so many times that even her daughter has lost count. During one of the divorced periods he took and then divorced another woman. Now they are back together again, and I dont know if anyone knows if they are legally married or not. This brings up a question: Is a real marriage just a legal marriage? Or can one be really married in Gods eyes without a legal ceremony? Ive heard lots of opinions about that. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands I tried several times to copy and paste from the web site and for some reason, it wasn't working. So I copied them myself. Sorry it took so long. I would assume there are going to be some terms in this list that people may not understand, but we can give explanations. One thing I would like to mention is number 127. We actually know a couple who did this. They were married many years ago, had children, got a divorce. The wifewas withsomeone else, had a child, and then broke up with him. The wife then said the Lord toldme; she should obey Him and go back to her previous husband. I asked her about Deut. 24:4. I did not know the reason WHY God says not to do this. I do now. It turned very nasty. I guess God has more wisdom that we do Kay 119 Each man must give a half shekel annually. Ex. 30:13 120. Courts must calculate to determine when a new month begins. Ex. 12:2 121. To afflict and cry out before God in times of catastrophe. Num. 10:9 122. To marry a wife by means of ketubah and kiddushin. Deut. 22:13 123. Not to have relations with women not thus married. Deut. 23:18 124. Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations form your wife. Ex. 21:10 125. To have children with one's wife. Gen. 1:28 126. To issue a divorce by means of a get document. Deut. 24:1 127. A man must not remarry his wife after she has married someone else. Deut. 24:4 128. To do yibum (marry childless brother's widow) Deut. 25:5 129. To do chalitzah (freeing a widow from yibum) Deut. 25:9 130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed. Deut 25:5 131. The court must fine one who seduces a maiden. Ex. 22:15-16 132. The rapist must marry the maiden (if she chooses) Deut. 22:29 133. He is not allowed to divorce her. Deut. 22: 29 134. The slanderer must remain married to his wife. Deut. 22:19 135. He must not divorce her. Deut. 22:19 136.To fulfill the laws of the Sotah. Num. 5:30 137. Not to put oil in her meal offering. Num. 5:15 138. Not to put frankincense on her meal offering. Num. 5:15
RE: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
What does to afflict mean in #121? Self-mutilation??? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands I tried several times to copy and paste from the web site and for some reason, it wasn't working. So I copied them myself. Sorry it took so long. I would assume there are going to be some terms in this list that people may not understand, but we can give explanations. One thing I would like to mention is number 127. We actually know a couple who did this. They were married many years ago, had children, got a divorce. The wifewas withsomeone else, had a child, and then broke up with him. The wife then said the Lord toldme; she should obey Him and go back to her previous husband. I asked her about Deut. 24:4. I did not know the reason WHY God says not to do this. I do now. It turned very nasty. I guess God has more wisdom that we do Kay 119 Each man must give a half shekel annually. Ex. 30:13 120. Courts must calculate to determine when a new month begins. Ex. 12:2 121. To afflict and cry out before God in times of catastrophe. Num. 10:9 122. To marry a wife by means of ketubah and kiddushin. Deut. 22:13 123. Not to have relations with women not thus married. Deut. 23:18 124. Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations form your wife. Ex. 21:10 125. To have children with one's wife. Gen. 1:28 126. To issue a divorce by means of a get document. Deut. 24:1 127. A man must not remarry his wife after she has married someone else. Deut. 24:4 128. To do yibum (marry childless brother's widow) Deut. 25:5 129. To do chalitzah (freeing a widow from yibum) Deut. 25:9 130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed. Deut 25:5 131. The court must fine one who seduces a maiden. Ex. 22:15-16 132. The rapist must marry the maiden (if she chooses) Deut. 22:29 133. He is not allowed to divorce her. Deut. 22: 29 134. The slanderer must remain married to his wife. Deut. 22:19 135. He must not divorce her. Deut. 22:19 136.To fulfill the laws of the Sotah. Num. 5:30 137. Not to put oil in her meal offering. Num. 5:15 138. Not to put frankincense on her meal offering. Num. 5:15
RE: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
What are the laws of the Sotah in #136? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands I tried several times to copy and paste from the web site and for some reason, it wasn't working. So I copied them myself. Sorry it took so long. I would assume there are going to be some terms in this list that people may not understand, but we can give explanations. One thing I would like to mention is number 127. We actually know a couple who did this. They were married many years ago, had children, got a divorce. The wifewas withsomeone else, had a child, and then broke up with him. The wife then said the Lord toldme; she should obey Him and go back to her previous husband. I asked her about Deut. 24:4. I did not know the reason WHY God says not to do this. I do now. It turned very nasty. I guess God has more wisdom that we do Kay 119 Each man must give a half shekel annually. Ex. 30:13 120. Courts must calculate to determine when a new month begins. Ex. 12:2 121. To afflict and cry out before God in times of catastrophe. Num. 10:9 122. To marry a wife by means of ketubah and kiddushin. Deut. 22:13 123. Not to have relations with women not thus married. Deut. 23:18 124. Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations form your wife. Ex. 21:10 125. To have children with one's wife. Gen. 1:28 126. To issue a divorce by means of a get document. Deut. 24:1 127. A man must not remarry his wife after she has married someone else. Deut. 24:4 128. To do yibum (marry childless brother's widow) Deut. 25:5 129. To do chalitzah (freeing a widow from yibum) Deut. 25:9 130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed. Deut 25:5 131. The court must fine one who seduces a maiden. Ex. 22:15-16 132. The rapist must marry the maiden (if she chooses) Deut. 22:29 133. He is not allowed to divorce her. Deut. 22: 29 134. The slanderer must remain married to his wife. Deut. 22:19 135. He must not divorce her. Deut. 22:19 136.To fulfill the laws of the Sotah. Num. 5:30 137. Not to put oil in her meal offering. Num. 5:15 138. Not to put frankincense on her meal offering. Num. 5:15
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Slade Henson wrote: Hmm...why then, Terry, does God repeatedly say it was for the "foreigner" among them as well? You mention feasts, sacrifices, tithing, and Sabbath. Does this mean we no longer need to tithe or keep the Sabbath? What about the feasts? God says this is a forever commandment regarding Passover, throughout all your generations and that it is for the stranger as well. How come for Sukkot, it was done then, but it isn't done now, but it will be done again in the Kingdom? Do we get a break from these wonderful Feasts and times of joy and fellowship? If we're to do what Jesus did, how come He celebrated these Feasts and we don't have to? How come Paul continued celebrating the Feasts and the Sabbath? Kay P.S. to Kay. Missed answering a couple of your questions. Near as I can figure, when a foriegner was among the Jews, he was expected to do as they did. Jesus kept the law because it was in effect until the moment He said,"It is finished"! Paul kept the law (at times), because , as he readily admitted, he was trying to be all things to all people, that he might win some to Christ. I cannot find sukkot in my Bible. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk]139 - 175 of 613 Commands
In #162: would a non-Jew today mean a non-Believer in Christ? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]139 - 175 of 613 Commands Question: Are these all done away with since we're in the New Kay 139 Not to have relations with your mother Lev. 18:7 140 Not to have relations with your father's wife Lev. 18:8 141 Not to have relations with your sister Lev. 18:9 142 Not to have relations with your father's wife's daughter Lev. 18:11 143 Not to have relations with your son's daughter Lev. 18:10 144 Not to have relations with your daughter Lev. 18:10 145 Not to have relations with your daughter's daughter Lev. 18:10 146 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter Lev. 18:17 147 Not to have relations with a woman and her son's daughter Lev. 18:17 148 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter Lev. 18:17 149 Not to have relations with your father's sister Lev. 18:12 150 Not to have relations with your mother's sister Lev. 18:13 151 Not to have relations with your father's brother's wife Lev. 18:14 152 Not to have relations with your son's wife Lev. 18:15 153 Not to have relations with your brother's wife Lev. 18:16 154 Not to have relations with your wife's sister Lev. 18:18 155 A man must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 156 A woman must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 157 Not to have homosexual relations Lev. 18:22 158 Not to have homosexual relations with your father Lev. 18:7 159 Not to have homosexual relations with your father's brother Lev. 18:14 160 Not to have relations with a married woman Lev. 18:20 161 Not to have relations with a menstrually impure woman Lev. 18:19 162 Not to marry non-Jews Deut. 7:3 163 Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:4 164 Don't keep a third generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people Deut. 23:8-9 165 Not to refrain from marrying a third generation Edomite convert Deut. 23:8-9 166 Not to let a mamzer marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:3 167 Not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:2 168 Not to castrate any male (including animals) Lev. 22:24 169 The High Priest must not marry a widow Lev. 21:14 170 The High Priest must not have relations with a widow even outside of marriage Lev. 21:15 171 The High Priest must marry a virgin maiden Lev. 21:13 172 A Kohen must not marry a divorcee Lev. 21:7 173 A Kohen must not marry a zonah (a woman who had forbidden relations) Lev. 21:7 174 A priest must not marry a chalalah (party to or product of 169-172) Lev. 21:7 175 Not to make pleasurable contact with any forbidden woman Lev. 18:6
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
In a message dated 11/15/2004 9:39:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Creation -- The Fall -- Law -- Failure to uphold the law -- Grace enters in Jesus Christ So Creation and grace occur almost simaltaneously (from man's point of view0 - man is created with a view to maturity (thus the illusion of "fallen" nature) in Christ in preparation for the Next Life; the Law manifests man's inability to act apart from the communal presense of his God and Christ's incarnation joins our humanity (complete with its failures) with His divinty; His Indwelling through contrition and brokenness joins us to Him and gives us the completelness (success in living, power of will) in faith we seek while His sacrifice, the flow of the blood made continual because of His resurrection, cleanses us and protects us and completes us when we act without faith. Close? John PS -- We probably disagree on the "fall" but allowing my view on that circumstance, does the above approximate what you and Lance are trying to say?
Re: [TruthTalk]139 - 175 of 613 Commands
Slade Henson wrote: Question: Are these all done away with since we're in the New Kay 139 Not to have relations with your mother Lev. 18:7 140 Not to have relations with your father's wife Lev. 18:8 141 Not to have relations with your sister Lev. 18:9 142 Not to have relations with your father's wife's daughter Lev. 18:11 143 Not to have relations with your son's daughter Lev. 18:10 144 Not to have relations with your daughter Lev. 18:10 145 Not to have relations with your daughter's daughter Lev. 18:10 146 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter Lev. 18:17 147 Not to have relations with a woman and her son's daughter Lev. 18:17 148 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter Lev. 18:17 149 Not to have relations with your father's sister Lev. 18:12 150 Not to have relations with your mother's sister Lev. 18:13 151 Not to have relations with your father's brother's wife Lev. 18:14 152 Not to have relations with your son's wife Lev. 18:15 153 Not to have relations with your brother's wife Lev. 18:16 154 Not to have relations with your wife's sister Lev. 18:18 155 A man must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 156 A woman must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 157 Not to have homosexual relations Lev. 18:22 158 Not to have homosexual relations with your father Lev. 18:7 159 Not to have homosexual relations with your father's brother Lev. 18:14 160 Not to have relations with a married woman Lev. 18:20 161 Not to have relations with a menstrually impure woman Lev. 18:19 162 Not to marry non-Jews Deut. 7:3 163 Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:4 164 Don't keep a third generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people Deut. 23:8-9 165 Not to refrain from marrying a third generation Edomite convert Deut. 23:8-9 166 Not to let a mamzer marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:3 167 Not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:2 168 Not to castrate any male (including animals) Lev. 22:24 169 The High Priest must not marry a widow Lev. 21:14 170 The High Priest must not have relations with a widow even outside of marriage Lev. 21:15 171 The High Priest must marry a virgin maiden Lev. 21:13 172 A Kohen must not marry a divorcee Lev. 21:7 173 A Kohen must not marry a zonah (a woman who had forbidden relations) Lev. 21:7 174 A priest must not marry a chalalah (party to or product of 169-172) Lev. 21:7 175 Not to make pleasurable contact with any forbidden woman Lev. 18:6 No Kay. People who love God, love their neighbors, and love themselves will not do these things. They are all covered under the big two. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
To slade and to those of like mind:What is a covenant? What is a contract? What is the difference? Iff a covenant is unilateral, can it be broken? - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 07:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Slade Henson wrote: Hmm...why then, Terry, does God repeatedly say it was for the "foreigner" among them as well? You mention feasts, sacrifices, tithing, and Sabbath. Does this mean we no longer need to tithe or keep the Sabbath? What about the feasts? God says this is a forever commandment regarding Passover, throughout all your generations and that it is for the stranger as well. How come for Sukkot, it was done then, but it isn't done now, but it will be done again in the Kingdom? Do we get a break from these wonderful Feasts and times of joy and fellowship? If we're to do what Jesus did, how come He celebrated these Feasts and we don't have to? How come Paul continued celebrating the Feasts and the Sabbath? KayMornin' Kay. Strange as it seems, forever does not always mean forever. If you buy a house and sign a contract with a thirty year mortgage, and make payments every month for thirty years, the house is yours, If you only make payments for six months, you will be evicted. The thirty year contract now means nothing, since you have broken the contract. Same with a covenant. Good forever, or until broken.Since I am not a Jew, and since Leviticus says the law was only for the Jews, please tell me why I should be bound by your laws. Once you figure that one out, please tell me why you should be stuck with regulations that do not apply to me if God loves us both equally. Y'all need to do some serious questioning of your position. How to tithe to a priesthood that no longer exists would be a good place to start, because if you fail to tithe to the priests you break the whole law. With the laws that Jesus gave us, that presents no problem. Tithing is not required under the new covenant. We give with a cheerful heart, not because it is compulsory.It's all in the book. You can read it for yourself.Just remember that no matter how confused you may get, we love you anyway. :-)Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Please explain the 'law of exclusivity' (#615) to me. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk]139 - 175 of 613 Commands
Thanks for the clarification, Terry! :) I was getting confused with all the "under the law" stuff I'm reading:) K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004 08.12To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]139 - 175 of 613 Commands No Kay. People who love God, love their neighbors, and love themselves will not do these things. They are all covered under the big two.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish'
I'm assuming you're a book worm, Lance?? So are wewe have TONS of books. I'm currently reading "The Jew and His Home" by A.E. Kitov (English Translation, of course) I like it because of all the wisdom...especially regarding Beit Shalom (peace in the home and how to acquire it and how to keep it). Some of the chapters Know Your Home The Preciousness of Marriage Where Joy Dwells "And I will Dwell in Their Midst" Domestic Bliss (Shalom Bayit).(we use a different dialect of Hebrew, hence the differences in spelling here and my spelling above) A Liberal Spirit A Woman of Valor Modesty and Conduct Esteem Faithfulness and Devotion On Being Content with Little Hospitality Relatives and Neighbors Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004 06.33To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish' When I initially 'page through' a book I look first at: the table of contents, footnotes, chapter notes, endnotes, indices, bibliography, author bio (CV), fly leaf summary, preface (to whom is she indebted?) and the introduction. Thisfacilitates an understanding of how she came by what she's going to tell me about. My 'wish', should any choose to make it come true, is that you would provide a listing of (1) authors (1) titles that influence you then, say why. (annotated bibliography). I'm not just playing 'curious George' here. Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish'
In a message dated 11/16/2004 8:34:31 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm currently reading "The Jew and His Home" by A.E. Kitov (English Translation, of course) I like it because of all the wisdom...especially regarding Beit Shalom (peace in the home and how to acquire it and how to keep it). Some of the chapters Know Your Home The Preciousness of Marriage Where Joy Dwells "And I will Dwell in Their Midst" Domestic Bliss (Shalom Bayit).(we use a different dialect of Hebrew, hence the differences in spelling here and my spelling above) A Liberal Spirit A Woman of Valor Modesty and Conduct Esteem Faithfulness and Devotion On Being Content with Little Hospitality Relatives and Neighbors Kay Sounds like one that everyone could benefit from! Laura
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Izzy, The post before yours accusing Lance of 'interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative' contains three references to the name 'Lance'. Lance did not interrupt. He was addressing a post that had a lot to do with him. Secondly, was Lance being negative? The post he was responding to was in regards to David's question on interpreting scripture based upon how badly we interpret each other's emails. It was not a negative post but rather began to address David's question albeit in Lance's sometimes cryptic short style. It should be said however, unpacking what appears to be a short cryptic Lance post can often be a rewarding experience. It does take patience and hard work. Thirdly, this is a public forum. There are no personal conversations going on that are not invites to others to join in. You will probably realize the irony that by accusing Lance it is your post that interjects a certain negativeness to the conversation, not Lance's. There seems to be two Izzy's on this board. One does delightful posts regarding the work of the Spirit in her life and her family. The other does one or two liners that are very sarcastic and lack edification. I like the first Izzy. The second one has been extremely prevalent over the last 4 months. Lance constantly appeals to me that the first Izzy is the real Izzy, that the first Izzy displays God's heart. You may be surprised that your biggest supporter on this forum is Lance. I should note that there often seems to be two Jonathan's on this forum as well. It is something I am attempting to address, however futile my attempts have been so far. Jonathan Hughes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Please explain the 'law of exclusivity' (#615) to me. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilgie. Si vous ntes pas le destinataire vis, s.v.p. en informer immdiatement son expditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dtruire toute copie (lectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire vis est interdite et peut tre illgale. Merci de votre coopration relativement
RE: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
Those are the ones dealing with the woman who has allegedly committed adultery. She's brought before the priest and has to drink the bitter waters. K. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004 09.06To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands What are the laws of the Sotah in #136? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
David Miller wrote: The Bible says that David was a man after God's own heart. It also teaches us that David's only sin was in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. 1 Kings 15:5 (5) Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. Gary wrote: myth (e.g., Psa 32:: Of David: ..I said, I will confess my transgressions to the LORD..) David Miller wrote: Sorry, Gary, but no myth here. Read the whole passage. Abbreviation gets you into trouble. Psalms 32:5-6 (5) I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. (6) For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him. Gary wrote: it's myth: KDavid's word 'trangressions' is plural Oh, so the concept of myth has to do with my not using the plural word transgressions? It seems to me that we are wrangling over semantics and definition of words. My use of the word sin does not in any way imply that there were not multiple transgressions involved with the matter of Uriah. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. There was both adultery and murder involved, as well as other transgressions. Please note that in the passage you quote from Psalm 32, even King David used sin in the singular and transgressions in the plural in the same verse (v. 5). If you call my statement myth, wouldn't you also be calling his statement myth? I like what Keil and Delitzsch have to say about Psalm 32: - ... Ps 31 is a prayer under circumstances of outward distress, and Psa_32:1-11 is a didactic Psalm, concerning the way of penitence which leads to the forgiveness of sins; it is the second of the seven Psalmi paenitentiales of the church, and Augustine's favourite Psalm. We might take Augustine's words as its motto: intelligentia prima est ut te noris peccatorem. The poet bases it upon his own personal experience, and then applies the general teaching which he deduces from it, to each individual in the church of God. For a whole year after his adultery David was like one under sentence of condemnation. In the midst of this fearful anguish of soul he composed Ps 51, whereas Psa_32:1-11 was composed after his deliverance from this state of mind. The former was written in the very midst of the penitential struggle; the latter after he had recovered his inward peace. The theme of this Psalm is the precious treasure which he brought up out of that abyss of spiritual distress, viz., the doctrine of the blessedness of forgiveness, the sincere and unreserved confession of sin as the way to it, and the protection of God in every danger, together with joy in God, as its fruits. - I would like to add also that the concept of being godly does not just mean to stop sinning. If a person finds himself in sin, there is a right way and a wrong way to respond to that situation. The man who humbles himself and confesses his sin and repents will find forgiveness. In other words, David's response to his transgressions in the matter of Uriah instructs us how a man after God's own heart responds to sin and finds forgiveness and the remission of sins. We might loosely say that David's response to sin here is a godly response. The wicked response is to hide sin and pretend there is not a problem. The wicked response is to think that sin no longer matters to God and that God expects that everyone will continue to sin no matter what he does. Let us all depart from iniquity and find satisfaction in godliness. That is the message that I hear from poet-musician David. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
Gary wrote: also, someone notice/d that KDavid's lyric in Ps 32, below, is in the future tense of necessity the notion presentd by DavidM, below, is myth this is not a personal pejorative indictment it's an objective factual observation I think your one-liner of myth is pejorative. It would be helpful if you explained your viewpoint rather than just saying that you think the other person is telling a falsehood. In this particular case, you make too much of the tense here. Following is the passage you think I deceive others about: Psalms 32:5 (5) I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. Notice how he says, I said This psalm was penned more than a year after his transgressions. David is bringing to remembrance what he did. David said (past tense), I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord. In other words, after David had sinned, he made a decision that he would confess his transgressions. This was a right decision and so he shares it with us now after he had not only sinned, but also had confessed the sin. Please do not try and twist the Scriptures to have David saying that he planned future transgressions against God and that he also planned to confess them after he committed these sins. Please. Is anyone on this list really that gullible? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
DM says: (like please eh?) 'is anyone on this list really that gullible? You've been reading this list since it's inception (are you the inceptor?) and, you ask that question? I do believe that your SAQ is on a par with that of one of your disciples. Please, Joe, say it ain't so? (like please, eh?) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 10:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate Gary wrote: also, someone notice/d that KDavid's lyric in Ps 32, below, is in the future tense of necessity the notion presentd by DavidM, below, is myth this is not a personal pejorative indictment it's an objective factual observation I think your one-liner of myth is pejorative. It would be helpful if you explained your viewpoint rather than just saying that you think the other person is telling a falsehood. In this particular case, you make too much of the tense here. Following is the passage you think I deceive others about: Psalms 32:5 (5) I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. Notice how he says, I said This psalm was penned more than a year after his transgressions. David is bringing to remembrance what he did. David said (past tense), I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord. In other words, after David had sinned, he made a decision that he would confess his transgressions. This was a right decision and so he shares it with us now after he had not only sinned, but also had confessed the sin. Please do not try and twist the Scriptures to have David saying that he planned future transgressions against God and that he also planned to confess them after he committed these sins. Please. Is anyone on this list really that gullible? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Lance wrote: You are 'kin' to Rosanne Roseannadanna.There is either a misapplication or misapprehension of the heart of a matter under discussion. One major difference between yourself an RR is that when, as I see it, the matter is clarified, RR said either 'never mind' or 'well, it's always something', you just press on and on and on and onutterly convinced that you get it and we don't. A recent example of this was your conversation with John. You had a similar engagement with Bill Taylor (perfectionism). I'm sorry to show my ignorance yet again, but I have never heard of Rosanne Roseannadanna, so mentioning her does not help much. It sounds like you are saying that my problem is that I cannot understand the heart of a matter under discussion, and instead of recognizing my lack of understanding, I press on and on, utterly convinced that the person I converse with does not get it. This is apparently what you call, self-deception? If this is the definition of self-deception, then everyone on this list would be classified as self-deceived by someone else. Which of us arguing forcefully for a theme would think a priori that the other person already apprehends what we are trying to share with them? Do you realize that from my perspective, many of you do not apprehend the heart of a matter under discussion? You, especially, seem to dodge matters more than anyone on this list. Whether that is because you are shy, or a slow typist, or at a loss for words, I don't know. Until now I had always given you the benefit of the doubt. Now I see that there are some real problems with your perception about me on this list. You brought up two examples, so let's talk about them. 1. Concerning my recent conversation with John: from your perspective, what is the heart of the matter that I did not apprehend? 2. Concerning my past conversation with Bill Taylor, apparently concerning something that you call perfectionism. From your perspective, what is the heart of the matter that I did not apprehend? Also, I don't want to cause any insult here, but is there any possibility in your mind that maybe my apprehension of the heart of a matter could be better than yours, Bill Taylor's, or John's in regard to these particular subjects? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Lance wrote: I recently inserted a quotation from KB that addressed this very matter under 'ADDENDUM'. This list is meant to discuss what YOU believe. If KB were here, we could talk with him about it, but he is not. Nevertheless, you think he expressed something that you could not, so let's examine the first sentence. KB wrote: We ourselves shall never be true to ourselves. What does this mean? Does this mean that everyone deceives themselves? The heart of the matter for you seems to be that nobody except God is faithful. The heart of this statement is true, and from it we realize that the only way for man to be faithful is to be filled with God's Spirit. As Jesus said, why do you call me good? There is none good but God. However, some people use this premise with a slight twist, to say that everyone is unfaithful to each other and also unfaithful with themselves. Such a viewpoint is anathema. It denies the gospel. It denies the righteousness of Christ. I would be glad to discuss this with you or someone else here, but I can't discuss this with quotes that you post of others because they are not here to explain what they mean. Please try, in your reading of others, to incorporate the truth they share into your own thinking processes. Reject that which is not true. Formulate a way of thinking that is your own, that does not rely upon important names in history. Then speak from that system of thought that is your own, and refine it as you grow and encounter new truths in the world. I would like to hear some of your own thoughts in this forum and challenge you on those points that might need a little challenge. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Lance wrote: 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. My point was that if we think we understand what is meant to be communicated from a text, even when our understanding contradicts clarification by the author of that text, then we are setting ourselves up for huge deception if we approach the Scriptures this same way. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit is the one who interprets Scripture, not our puny little minds. I often ask the Lord in prayer, what did you mean by saying ... Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
In a message dated 11/16/2004 7:47:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please try, in your reading of others, to incorporate the truth they share into your own thinking processes. Reject that which is not true. Formulate a way of thinking that is your own, that does not rely upon important names in history. Then speak from that system of thought that is your own, and refine it as you grow and encounter new truths in the world. I would like to hear some of your own thoughts in this forum and challenge you on those points that might need a little challenge. Could it be that KB expresses that which Lance believes? DAvid, you might try responding to those words, included by Lance, and see what Lance has to say rather than resorting to the kind of criticism, disguised as honest (no doubt) advice., as is recorded above. You the Teacher -- Lance the elementary student is not condusive to meaningful debate. You have good things to say but such is clouded by this kind of response -- something you obviously enjoy. In view of such statements as "Such a viewpoint is anathema. It denies the gospel. It denies the righteousness of Christ," why would Lnace do anything in terms of response except to say "I repent" and why would you want to continue a discussion with one who is so clearly (by your judgment) outside the revelatory will of God? John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
In a message dated 11/16/2004 8:09:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy As Judy used to say -- it is a public list. "Interruption" is impossible. You want it to be private, then make it so. There can be no expectation of privacy on a public forum. John
[TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah
Last night I took my two and a half year old son Noah to his first swimming lesson. Noah isn't really afraid of water as much as he is afraid to spend time with someone other than his mother. Last night was daddy time. He didn't have his nap during the day and was mildly cranky by the time we left. It didn't help that he stubbed his toe a few minutes prior to leaving. What? Mommy isn't coming? "Will they have toys there?" "Trucks or cars?" Hmmm. Not a great start. Grandpa accompanies us to the pool which is only five minutes from our townhouse. "We going in there?" Noah points. "Yes, sweetie. We have to go to the change room." "Why?" "So we can put on our bathing suits." "OK," he replies. Daddy and Noah go into the boy's changeroom. Noah scans the outline of the room, taking in the large amount of grey lockers. "Sit on the bench Noah and we will put your bathing suit on." Each article of clothing I remove prompts Noah to ask "why you take my [shoes, socks, pants, shirt] off?" "We just wear out bathing suits sweetie," Daddy assures him. Now, Daddy is a bit on the overweight side. Daddy thinks wearing his T-Shirt into the pool may be a wise move to avoid shouts of Shamoo! Noah clearly thinks Daddy should look just like him. "Daddy, take off your shirt!". Daddy grimaces, realizes that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and removes his shirt. Most public pools force you to take a quick shower rinse. Noah takes a daily bath but has never been in a shower. "Daddy, you get wet." After some prompting and the holding of his hand the water warms up enough for Noah to "get wet". Noah opens his mouth attempting to drink the shower water. "Ok Noah, let's go meet the kids we will swim with." Noah and Daddy, hand in hand, walk out to the pool. It turns out there are four pools in the complex:two hot or warming pools and two much larger pools, one of them shallow and interspersed with small islands. Noah immediately states that he wants to go in the "little one." The class is ready. The teacher asks the parents to walk their children down the incline into the water. Noah and I take up the last position. Daddy begins to walk down the ramp; Noah stands absolutely still. Lifting 36 pounds of toddler we descend into the water. "I want to go home" becomes the refrain for the next five minutes. Noah becomes completely fixated on his own situation. Like most of us when we become stressed we tend to limit our vision. We don't see all the kids playing around us, or hear the hubub of joy. We don't appreicate the silky feel of the warm water.We want to go home. Daddy continues to reassure Noah. Little pecks on the cheek, followed by attempts at expanding his vision. "Look at what that kid is doingNoah. Wow, see how she kicks her feet?Is that a slide over there? Let's wave to Grandpa. Remember honey, Daddy is holding you tightly. He won't let you go. You are safe." Slowly Noah begins to take in his surroundings. One arm drops from my shoulder into the water, a small splash results. A smile forms on Noah's face. "Do it again Noah." Another splash follows. Noah is beginning to enjoy himself. The parents and kids form into a circle and sing Old MacDonald has a Farm. When it is Noah's turn he states that MacDonald has a truck, with a vroom, vroom here and a vroom, vroom there. The teacher grabs a few balls and encourages the kids to kick or throw them to each other. Noah likes to kick more than throw. We move to different stations as we move around the pool. We get to an area deep enough for the children to jump off the sides. I place Noah on the wet tile. He is used to having part of me touching him at all times. Now he is standing on the side of the pool, a slight shiver. "Jump Noah. Daddy will catch you. I promise." Noah dives more than he jumps, a magnetfor my embrace. "Good boy Noah. Did you like that?" "Do it again Daddy!" Noah jumps in a few more times. We continue to frolic in the pool. Noah goes down the chidren's slide, happily falling into the arms of his father. The half hour is approaching its end. It is time to go into the 'warming' pool, the little one Noah wanted to go into originally. The small pool has seats on the side with jets blowing bubbles. Noah is not too sure about these jets. "What is that noise?" "Those are air jets that make bubbles. They feel really cool if you put your hand in front of one." Noah gingerly puts his hand under the bubbles to meet the rush of the jet. "Woh," he says. Most of the kids have now left the pool. Only two of us are left. Noah shakes the teacher's hand and says, "thank you." It is time to go home. I am reminded of an illustration that TF Torrance tells about walking with his daughter. His daughter's tiny hand is engulfed in his own. She thinks that she has ahold of her father but in reality it is her father who has ahold of her. Last night Noah gripped me tightly but it was really my
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Judy wrote: When I say Ceremonial Law I believe you know what I mean David - The Levitical priesthood, the Temple with it's ritual and sacrifices and all of the feasts which were a shadow of what was to come. The problem with defining ceremonial with that which is a shadow is that such sometimes causes a person to ignore the law. If a certain aspect of the law is a shadow, then we need to look hard and long at it. For example, the law concerning Passover should help us understand Christ, since Christ is the Passover lamb. The seventh day Sabbath also is a shadow, just like Passover. Does that mean that you consider the fourth commandment (of the Ten Commandments) to be ceremonial? I really do not know how you would answer this. Your response is reminiscent of the way that John and some others react to my questions. I think my question is honest and sincere and deserves to be answered. Peace be with you. David Miller. p.s. Have you ever considered that marriage itself is a shadow of our relationship to Christ? Nobody would argue that we should do away with marriage just because it is a shadow of something to come. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Yes, that is what that first statement means and, as you just might recall, I believe it to apply even to you. You may not have a 'puny little mind' David, but you are regularly small-minded. It's quite unbecoming for someone so obviously gifted. By the by, I doubt that you've every written a thought which was truly and genuinely original so, don't be frightened of Karl. He was probably the greatest theologian since Athanasius. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 10:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Lance wrote: I recently inserted a quotation from KB that addressed this very matter under 'ADDENDUM'. This list is meant to discuss what YOU believe. If KB were here, we could talk with him about it, but he is not. Nevertheless, you think he expressed something that you could not, so let's examine the first sentence. KB wrote: We ourselves shall never be true to ourselves. What does this mean? Does this mean that everyone deceives themselves? The heart of the matter for you seems to be that nobody except God is faithful. The heart of this statement is true, and from it we realize that the only way for man to be faithful is to be filled with God's Spirit. As Jesus said, why do you call me good? There is none good but God. However, some people use this premise with a slight twist, to say that everyone is unfaithful to each other and also unfaithful with themselves. Such a viewpoint is anathema. It denies the gospel. It denies the righteousness of Christ. I would be glad to discuss this with you or someone else here, but I can't discuss this with quotes that you post of others because they are not here to explain what they mean. Please try, in your reading of others, to incorporate the truth they share into your own thinking processes. Reject that which is not true. Formulate a way of thinking that is your own, that does not rely upon important names in history. Then speak from that system of thought that is your own, and refine it as you grow and encounter new truths in the world. I would like to hear some of your own thoughts in this forum and challenge you on those points that might need a little challenge. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
I did not write the post below. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands In a message dated 11/15/2004 9:39:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Creation -- The Fall -- Law -- Failure to uphold the law -- Grace enters in Jesus Christ So Creation and grace occur almost simaltaneously (from man's point of view0 - man is created with a view to maturity (thus the illusion of fallen nature) in Christ in preparation for the Next Life; the Law manifests man's inability to act apart from the communal presense of his God and Christ's incarnation joins our humanity (complete with its failures) with His divinty; His Indwelling through contrition and brokenness joins us to Him and gives us the completelness (success in living, power of will) in faith we seek while His sacrifice, the flow of the blood made continual because of His resurrection, cleanses us and protects us and completes us when we act without faith. Close? John PS -- We probably disagree on the fall but allowing my view on that circumstance, does the above approximate what you and Lance are trying to say?
Re: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah
Hughes Jonathan wrote: Last night I took my two and a half year old son Noah to his first swimming lesson. Noah isn't really afraid of water as much as he is afraid to spend time with someone other than his mother. Last night was daddy time. He didn't have his nap during the day and was mildly cranky by the time we left. It didn't help that he stubbed his toe a few minutes prior to leaving. What? Mommy isn't coming? "Will they have toys there?" "Trucks or cars?" Hmmm. Not a great start. Grandpa accompanies us to the pool which is only five minutes from our townhouse. "We going in there?" Noah points. "Yes, sweetie. We have to go to the change room." "Why?" "So we can put on our bathing suits." "OK," he replies. Daddy and Noah go into the boy's changeroom. Noah scans the outline of the room, taking in the large amount of grey lockers. "Sit on the bench Noah and we will put your bathing suit on." Each article of clothing I remove prompts Noah to ask "why you take my [shoes, socks, pants, shirt] off?" "We just wear out bathing suits sweetie," Daddy assures him. Now, Daddy is a bit on the overweight side. Daddy thinks wearing his T-Shirt into the pool may be a wise move to avoid shouts of Shamoo! Noah clearly thinks Daddy should look just like him. "Daddy, take off your shirt!". Daddy grimaces, realizes that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and removes his shirt. Most public pools force you to take a quick shower rinse. Noah takes a daily bath but has never been in a shower. "Daddy, you get wet." After some prompting and the holding of his hand the water warms up enough for Noah to "get wet". Noah opens his mouth attempting to drink the shower water. "Ok Noah, let's go meet the kids we will swim with." Noah and Daddy, hand in hand, walk out to the pool. It turns out there are four pools in the complex:two hot or warming pools and two much larger pools, one of them shallow and interspersed with small islands. Noah immediately states that he wants to go in the "little one." The class is ready. The teacher asks the parents to walk their children down the incline into the water. Noah and I take up the last position. Daddy begins to walk down the ramp; Noah stands absolutely still. Lifting 36 pounds of toddler we descend into the water. "I want to go home" becomes the refrain for the next five minutes. Noah becomes completely fixated on his own situation. Like most of us when we become stressed we tend to limit our vision. We don't see all the kids playing around us, or hear the hubub of joy. We don't appreicate the silky feel of the warm water.We want to go home. Daddy continues to reassure Noah. Little pecks on the cheek, followed by attempts at expanding his vision. "Look at what that kid is doingNoah. Wow, see how she kicks her feet?Is that a slide over there? Let's wave to Grandpa. Remember honey, Daddy is holding you tightly. He won't let you go. You are safe." Slowly Noah begins to take in his surroundings. One arm drops from my shoulder into the water, a small splash results. A smile forms on Noah's face. "Do it again Noah." Another splash follows. Noah is beginning to enjoy himself. The parents and kids form into a circle and sing Old MacDonald has a Farm. When it is Noah's turn he states that MacDonald has a truck, with a vroom, vroom here and a vroom, vroom there. The teacher grabs a few balls and encourages the kids to kick or throw them to each other. Noah likes to kick more than throw. We move to different stations as we move around the pool. We get to an area deep enough for the children to jump off the sides. I place Noah on the wet tile. He is used to having part of me touching him at all times. Now he is standing on the side of the pool, a slight shiver. "Jump Noah. Daddy will catch you. I promise." Noah dives more than he jumps, a magnetfor my embrace. "Good boy Noah. Did you like that?" "Do it again Daddy!" Noah jumps in a few more times. We continue to frolic in the pool. Noah goes down the chidren's slide, happily falling into the arms of his father. The half hour is approaching its end. It is time to go into the 'warming' pool, the little one Noah wanted to go into originally. The small pool has seats on the side with jets blowing bubbles. Noah is not too sure about these jets. "What is that noise?" "Those are air jets that make bubbles. They feel really cool if you put your hand in front of one." Noah gingerly puts his hand under the bubbles to meet the rush of the jet. "Woh," he says. Most of the kids have now left the pool. Only two of us are left. Noah shakes the teacher's hand and says, "thank you." It is time to go home. I am reminded of an illustration that TF Torrance tells about walking with his daughter. His daughter's tiny hand is engulfed in his own. She thinks that she has ahold of her father but in reality it is her father who has ahold of her. Last night Noah gripped me tightly but it was really my grip on him
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Lance wrote: DAVID MILLER: This is what I'm meaning. SOMETIMES you are a sophisticated version of Judy. One (this one) occasionally 'wishes' , not hopes, to say: Enough Already! Aw, Lance. I liked the exchange. I think Slade made a good observation, that Judy's response had an elitist implication, the idea that Jews need to become Christians to be in Christ. The truth is that Christians become Christians by being engrafted into a Jew. This is an important difference in their premises. It is part of the reason they read the Scriptures a little differently from each other. Is it possible that you just don't like the hard work of discussing differences and studying out the truth? (Please do not interpret this question as an insult or accusation. I am just asking about the possibility. You may be a much harder worker than me and certainly much more studious. I'm just examining the possibilities and giving you the opportunity to dismiss one of them. You don't like the exchange, but why?) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
DM says of Sir Lancelot: 'you don't like the exchange' and why kind Sir L is that? I OCCASIONALLY find you to be excessively pedantic. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 11:55 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Lance wrote: DAVID MILLER: This is what I'm meaning. SOMETIMES you are a sophisticated version of Judy. One (this one) occasionally 'wishes' , not hopes, to say: Enough Already! Aw, Lance. I liked the exchange. I think Slade made a good observation, that Judy's response had an elitist implication, the idea that Jews need to become Christians to be in Christ. The truth is that Christians become Christians by being engrafted into a Jew. This is an important difference in their premises. It is part of the reason they read the Scriptures a little differently from each other. Is it possible that you just don't like the hard work of discussing differences and studying out the truth? (Please do not interpret this question as an insult or accusation. I am just asking about the possibility. You may be a much harder worker than me and certainly much more studious. I'm just examining the possibilities and giving you the opportunity to dismiss one of them. You don't like the exchange, but why?) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
I Cor 13:4 Love...is not rude. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Please explain the 'law of exclusivity' (#615) to me. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Now you are doing it. The First Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Izzy, The post before yours accusing Lance of 'interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative' contains three references to the name 'Lance'. Lance did not interrupt. He was addressing a post that had a lot to do with him. Secondly, was Lance being negative? The post he was responding to was in regards to David's question on interpreting scripture based upon how badly we interpret each other's emails. It was not a negative post but rather began to address David's question albeit in Lance's sometimes cryptic short style. It should be said however, unpacking what appears to be a short cryptic Lance post can often be a rewarding experience. It does take patience and hard work. Thirdly, this is a public forum. There are no personal conversations going on that are not invites to others to join in. You will probably realize the irony that by accusing Lance it is your post that interjects a certain negativeness to the conversation, not Lance's. There seems to be two Izzy's on this board. One does delightful posts regarding the work of the Spirit in her life and her family. The other does one or two liners that are very sarcastic and lack edification. I like the first Izzy. The second one has been extremely prevalent over the last 4 months. Lance constantly appeals to me that the first Izzy is the real Izzy, that the first Izzy displays God's heart. You may be surprised that your biggest supporter on this forum is Lance. I should note that there often seems to be two Jonathan's on this forum as well. It is something I am attempting to address, however futile my attempts have been so far. Jonathan Hughes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Please explain the 'law of exclusivity' (#615) to me. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous nêtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel,
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Judy, what do you think of the following passages which speak of the Jew FIRST? Romans 1:16 (16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 2:9-10 (9) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; (10) But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Is this meant for David Miller? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 12:02 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel I Cor 13:4 Love...is not rude. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Please explain the 'law of exclusivity' (#615) to me. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Since you jumped in on this, John, let me explain that I find it frustrating that almost every time someone tries to discuss something with either you, Lance, or Jonathan one of you jumps in to defend him (or more likely attack the person directly) before there is any answer from the person who was addressed. This seems very immature and/or rude. Im sure you can all carry on a discussion without having someone jump in to answer for you. It makes the discussion very hard to follow because it is immediately diffused into splinter discussions, which results in nothing. The whole discussion is ruined; which may in fact be your motive. Can you apprehend my meaning here guys??? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel In a message dated 11/16/2004 8:09:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy As Judy used to say -- it is a public list. Interruption is impossible. You want it to be private, then make it so. There can be no expectation of privacy on a public forum. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
the point, your myth, remains On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:03:59 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:after David had sinned, he made a decision that he [will]confess his transgressions.
RE: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah
Lovely, Jonathan. And so true. (You should see my daughter-in-law taking three girls, ages 6, 4, and 2, swimmingwhat a handful!) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah Last night I took my two and a half year old son Noah to his first swimming lesson. Noah isn't really afraid of water as much as he is afraid to spend time with someone other than his mother. Last night was daddy time. He didn't have his nap during the day and was mildly cranky by the time we left. It didn't help that he stubbed his toe a few minutes prior to leaving. What? Mommy isn't coming? Will they have toys there? Trucks or cars? Hmmm. Not a great start. Grandpa accompanies us to the pool which is only five minutes from our townhouse. We going in there? Noah points. Yes, sweetie. We have to go to the change room. Why? So we can put on our bathing suits. OK, he replies. Daddy and Noah go into the boy's changeroom. Noah scans the outline of the room, taking in the large amount of grey lockers. Sit on the bench Noah and we will put your bathing suit on. Each article of clothing I remove prompts Noah to ask why you take my [shoes, socks, pants, shirt] off? We just wear out bathing suits sweetie, Daddy assures him. Now, Daddy is a bit on the overweight side. Daddy thinks wearing his T-Shirt into the pool may be a wise move to avoid shouts of Shamoo! Noah clearly thinks Daddy should look just like him. Daddy, take off your shirt!. Daddy grimaces, realizes that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and removes his shirt. Most public pools force you to take a quick shower rinse. Noah takes a daily bath but has never been in a shower. Daddy, you get wet. After some prompting and the holding of his hand the water warms up enough for Noah to get wet. Noah opens his mouth attempting to drink the shower water. Ok Noah, let's go meet the kids we will swim with. Noah and Daddy, hand in hand, walk out to the pool. It turns out there are four pools in the complex:two hot or warming pools and two much larger pools, one of them shallow and interspersed with small islands. Noah immediately states that he wants to go in the little one. The class is ready. The teacher asks the parents to walk their children down the incline into the water. Noah and I take up the last position. Daddy begins to walk down the ramp; Noah stands absolutely still. Lifting 36 pounds of toddler we descend into the water. I want to go home becomes the refrain for the next five minutes. Noah becomes completely fixated on his own situation. Like most of us when we become stressed we tend to limit our vision. We don't see all the kids playing around us, or hear the hubub of joy. We don't appreicate the silky feel of the warm water.We want to go home. Daddy continues to reassure Noah. Little pecks on the cheek, followed by attempts at expanding his vision. Look at what that kid is doingNoah. Wow, see how she kicks her feet?Is that a slide over there? Let's wave to Grandpa. Remember honey, Daddy is holding you tightly. He won't let you go. You are safe. Slowly Noah begins to take in his surroundings. One arm drops from my shoulder into the water, a small splash results. A smile forms on Noah's face. Do it again Noah. Another splash follows. Noah is beginning to enjoy himself. The parents and kids form into a circle and sing Old MacDonald has a Farm. When it is Noah's turn he states that MacDonald has a truck, with a vroom, vroom here and a vroom, vroom there. The teacher grabs a few balls and encourages the kids to kick or throw them to each other. Noah likes to kick more than throw. We move to different stations as we move around the pool. We get to an area deep enough for the children to jump off the sides. I place Noah on the wet tile. He is used to having part of me touching him at all times. Now he is standing on the side of the pool, a slight shiver. Jump Noah. Daddy will catch you. I promise. Noah dives more than he jumps, a magnetfor my embrace. Good boy Noah. Did you like that? Do it again Daddy! Noah jumps in a few more times. We continue to frolic in the pool. Noah goes down the chidren's slide, happily falling into the arms of his father. The half hour is approaching its end. It is time to go into the 'warming' pool, the little one Noah wanted to go into originally. The small pool has seats on the side with jets blowing bubbles. Noah is not too sure about these jets. What is that noise? Those are air jets that make bubbles. They feel really cool if you put your hand in front of one. Noah gingerly puts his hand under the bubbles to meet the rush of the jet. Woh, he says. Most of the kids have now left the pool. Only two of us are left. Noah shakes the teacher's hand and says, thank you. It is time to go home. I am reminded of an illustration that TF Torrance tells about
RE: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah
Terry, You are wonderfully practical. J Izzy === Enjoy him while you can. Before you know it, he will be an unbearable teen ager. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Kay wrote: I think it's been said repeatedly. The four rules given were what they HAD to do in order to be granted entry into synagogues. This is not true, Kay. Somebody has misled you on this point. Gentiles already had access to the synagogues before they ever heard of Jesus Christ. If you would like me to establish this point for you, I will. Just ask. I am assuming that this was an oversight on your part, where you were perhaps just repeating something that someone else told you. Kay wrote: Moses being read in the synagogues was very important, Judy. Moses was being and taught in the synagogues (same as today) and slowly, the people would HEAR (shema) and LISTEN, and OBEY. They were babes and couldn't handle a ton of rules on conduct and holiness before God. They needed to be spoon-fed slowly. Same as people today. Not much has changed. Wait a minute, Kay. I think you are missing the whole point of the Acts 15 council. Read carefully what Peter said at that council: Acts 15:10 (10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Do you see it? ... which neither our fathers NOR WE were able to bear. I simply cannot see how you can read into this the idea of spoon-feeding being their concern. From my perspective, these are liberal Jews who came to realize that the letter of the law is not where it is at. They embraced Gentiles, unlike their conservative counterparts, realizing from prophecy that God had chosen a different way of making a people unto him. Furthermore, they realized that their own salvation was not through the law, but through grace. Acts 15:11 (11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. In regards to Acts 15:21 (For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.), this is a way of saying that the churches need not duplicate the efforts of Judaism in teaching Moses and the law. There were already plenty of synagogues (an estimated 300 to 400 synagogues in Jerusalem alone at this time) where those interested in the law can learn and study the law. Furthermore, if anyone wanted to convert to Judaism and be observant, the structure already existed for doing this. Please note that this comment was made in the council meeting by James, but not included in the letters sent out. There was no mention of how they needed to wait for maturity before they could handle the law. There was no mention that they needed to be spoon-fed for awhile because they were babes. The question was whether or not Gentile believers needed to take up the law and be observant of the commandments of Moses in order to be saved. The answer was no, the Gentiles did not need to observe the commandments of Torah. This was a monumentally liberal perspective for its time and we should not cheapen its import by surmising ideas of spoon-feeding the Gentiles until they were mature enough to handle the tough Torah laws! :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Negatory. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Is this meant for David Miller? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 12:02 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel I Cor 13:4 Love...is not rude. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Please explain the 'law of exclusivity' (#615) to me. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 08:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Jonathan wrote: Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out ... I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an edge. Did I miss something? Lance, do I try and communicate through an edge, whatever that means? I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, where's the beef? I'm still a student, a work in progress. Jonathan wrote: Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when the author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in direct correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture when there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
John Smithson wrote: Additionally, a comparison of Ps 7 complete with the arrogance of the self-righteous in stark contrast to the wording of one who is suddenly and completely humbled by the fact of sin in his life (Ps 51) and in the presense of a merciful God. I believe there is an important distinction to be understood between the concepts of arrogance and integrity. Psalm 7 conveys integrity, not arrogance. Job's friends accused Job of arrogance, but God made it clear that Job kept the integrity of his heart in saying that he had not sinned. It would be a sin for a man to say that he has sinned some unknown sin somewhere when, in fact, he had not sinned. Do you agree with this point? It also would be a sin for a man to declare that he will sin at some future date when the Lord has promised to deliver him from every temptation known to man. God desires humility, not self-abasement. God desires sober thinking, not sniveling cowering at his feet. God desires for us to stand up like men of valor before him with a heart free of any consciousness of sin. Blessed is the man who has found the remission of his sins in truth. Blessed is the man who can stand before the Lord in prayer and say, I will not sin against you. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Not much time right now...will answer the rest later when I get a chance How, then, David, do you rectify Matt. 11:30...My yoke is easy and my burden is light? K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004 12.24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Wait a minute, Kay. I think you are missing the whole point of the Acts 15 council. Read carefully what Peter said at that council: Acts 15:10 (10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Do you see it? ... which neither our fathers NOR WE were able to bear. I simply cannot see how you can read into this the idea of spoon-feeding being their concern. From my perspective, these are liberal Jews who came to realize that the letter of the law is not where it is at. They embraced Gentiles, unlike their conservative counterparts, realizing from prophecy that God had chosen a different way of making a people unto him. Furthermore, they realized that their own salvation was not through the law, but through grace. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
also,KDavid comments, "..may those who love your salvation always say, "The LORD be exalted!" Yet I am poor and needy [now*]; may the Lord think of me [now*].." (Ps. 40) *presently, beyond his 'Uriah confession/s',"[KDavid's sins]are more than the hairs of[his] head, and[his] heart fails within [him].."On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:12:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point,[the] myth, remains On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:03:59 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:after David had sinned, he made a decision that he [will]confess his transgressions.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
myth On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:32:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:God desires for us to stand up like men of valor before him with a heart free of any consciousness of sin.
[TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken?
Lance wrote: If a covenant is unilateral, can it be broken? A covenant is an agreement between parties and there are always expected obligations on both sides. If not, then there is no real covenant. One party simply does something for someone else without any agreement between them. So I would suggest that there is no such thing as a unilateral covenant. The various covenants found in the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that they could be broken by man. Consider the following two passages: Abrahamic Covenant- Genesis 17:14 (14) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses covenants- Jeremiah 11:10 (10) They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. Therefore, Terry's concept of the covenant being broken and therefore setting aside the forever clauses is valid. The idea that there is a new covenant in Christ, a different covenant with different elements, is certainly a valid consideration here. As an example, consider the sabbath commandment. When it was established, God expected them to keep it forever, for a perpetual covenant. Exodus 31:15-18 (15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. (17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. But when Israel sinned and broke the covenant, God told Israel to stop keeping the sabbath. Isaiah 1:10-18 (10) Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. (11) To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. (12) When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? (13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. (14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. (15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. (16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; (17) Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
"..I myself..in the sinful nature [am] a slave to the law of sin." --the Ap. Paul (Rom 7) On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:41:36 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:32:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:God desires for us to stand up like men of valor before him with a heart free of any consciousness of sin.
Re: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken?
I would 'suggest' that God's covenant with Abraham is, in reality, unilateral and, thereby further 'suggesting' that such an covenant does exist. You are speaking of a bi-lateral covenant. God in Christ completes what some have called the 'double move' (God toward man Man toward God). No 'conditions' are attached to a unilateral covenant. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 12:53 Subject: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken? Lance wrote: If a covenant is unilateral, can it be broken? A covenant is an agreement between parties and there are always expected obligations on both sides. If not, then there is no real covenant. One party simply does something for someone else without any agreement between them. So I would suggest that there is no such thing as a unilateral covenant. The various covenants found in the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that they could be broken by man. Consider the following two passages: Abrahamic Covenant- Genesis 17:14 (14) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses covenants- Jeremiah 11:10 (10) They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. Therefore, Terry's concept of the covenant being broken and therefore setting aside the forever clauses is valid. The idea that there is a new covenant in Christ, a different covenant with different elements, is certainly a valid consideration here. As an example, consider the sabbath commandment. When it was established, God expected them to keep it forever, for a perpetual covenant. Exodus 31:15-18 (15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. (17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. But when Israel sinned and broke the covenant, God told Israel to stop keeping the sabbath. Isaiah 1:10-18 (10) Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. (11) To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. (12) When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? (13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. (14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. (15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. (16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; (17) Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
That is correct. All of the laws either talk about loving God or loving your neighbor. They teach us how to both love God and love our neighbor. Suzy --- Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Susan Petersen wrote: Jesus was asked by the Pharisees to rank the greatest commandments. The top two are love the Lord your God and the other is like it Love your neighbor. Just because he gave those two a higher ranking than the other laws does not mean that the lesser ranking laws are no longer in effect. == Matthew 22: 40 On* these two* commandments hang *ALL* the law and the prophets. Jesus __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
John wrote: Could it be that KB expresses that which Lance believes? David, you might try responding to those words, included by Lance, and see what Lance has to say rather than resorting to the kind of criticism, disguised as honest (no doubt) advice., as is recorded above. You the Teacher -- Lance the elementary student is not condusive to meaningful debate. I did respond to the first sentence, John. The problem with responding to what someone else wrote are numerous. They include: 1. Oh, but I don't agree with everything he wrote. 2. I don't think he meant that. What he means to me is ... 3. How dare you insult the greatest theologian who ever lived! 4. You are such an idiot to disagree with someone so great as ... And the list goes on and on. In Lance's case, I am certain to insult a favorite theologian of his and the discussion would become emotional and go nowhere. This list is not about discussing what others have written. We allow some latititude for people to quote others, either as an authority for what they believe or as some kind of supportive explanation, but this list is primarily for discussing views which each of us hold. My comments were meant to help Lance keep on this track, and your comments detract from the purposes for which this list was designed. Those who want to read others are free to browse and surf the web. This forum is for discussing views between people who have viewpoints that they want to discuss. It is especially for divergent viewpoints with a wide variety of world views and opinions. It is a place where you can challenge other people's views and have your own viewpoint challenged. This provokes study and an examination of hidden assumptions that we all make in our reasoning process. John Smithson wrote: In view of such statements as Such a viewpoint is anathema. It denies the gospel. It denies the righteousness of Christ, why would Lance do anything in terms of response except to say I repent and why would you want to continue a discussion with one who is so clearly (by your judgment) outside the revelatory will of God? Wow, you really have no latitude for people disagreeing with one another and discussing differences. Sometimes people do change their minds. I have many times. The response Lance might have to my comments is varied. He might say that he agrees with my analysis, that it is anathema to say that men cannot receive the Spirit of God and become faithful to God and to each other. On the other hand, if he did think it is impossible for men to be faithful to others and to themselves, he might realize that we have a serious point of disagreement here and know that we need to discuss it further. My point is that depending on how the sentence is interpreted, we might have exact agreement or we might be miles apart. We have to start somewhere and I was trying to make my position clear. Why do you have such a hard time with people being clear and exact about their positions? In my opinion, being clear makes the discussion easier, but there will be no discussion if the other party has no arguments for his position. As for why I would want to discuss with someone outside of God's will, well, that is because this is what God has called me to do. As for Lance, however, you AGAIN sigh clearly misread what I wrote because I do not consider Lance to be clearly ouside the revelatory will of God. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah
Jonathan, you are a very gifted writer. Did you submit this piece for publication somewhere? Very polished writing. Delightful to read. By the way, I have had five children go through this stage, so I relate to your experience. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
DM:Will you kindly write for us an underived paragraph? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 13:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception John wrote: Could it be that KB expresses that which Lance believes? David, you might try responding to those words, included by Lance, and see what Lance has to say rather than resorting to the kind of criticism, disguised as honest (no doubt) advice., as is recorded above. You the Teacher -- Lance the elementary student is not condusive to meaningful debate. I did respond to the first sentence, John. The problem with responding to what someone else wrote are numerous. They include: 1. Oh, but I don't agree with everything he wrote. 2. I don't think he meant that. What he means to me is ... 3. How dare you insult the greatest theologian who ever lived! 4. You are such an idiot to disagree with someone so great as ... And the list goes on and on. In Lance's case, I am certain to insult a favorite theologian of his and the discussion would become emotional and go nowhere. This list is not about discussing what others have written. We allow some latititude for people to quote others, either as an authority for what they believe or as some kind of supportive explanation, but this list is primarily for discussing views which each of us hold. My comments were meant to help Lance keep on this track, and your comments detract from the purposes for which this list was designed. Those who want to read others are free to browse and surf the web. This forum is for discussing views between people who have viewpoints that they want to discuss. It is especially for divergent viewpoints with a wide variety of world views and opinions. It is a place where you can challenge other people's views and have your own viewpoint challenged. This provokes study and an examination of hidden assumptions that we all make in our reasoning process. John Smithson wrote: In view of such statements as Such a viewpoint is anathema. It denies the gospel. It denies the righteousness of Christ, why would Lance do anything in terms of response except to say I repent and why would you want to continue a discussion with one who is so clearly (by your judgment) outside the revelatory will of God? Wow, you really have no latitude for people disagreeing with one another and discussing differences. Sometimes people do change their minds. I have many times. The response Lance might have to my comments is varied. He might say that he agrees with my analysis, that it is anathema to say that men cannot receive the Spirit of God and become faithful to God and to each other. On the other hand, if he did think it is impossible for men to be faithful to others and to themselves, he might realize that we have a serious point of disagreement here and know that we need to discuss it further. My point is that depending on how the sentence is interpreted, we might have exact agreement or we might be miles apart. We have to start somewhere and I was trying to make my position clear. Why do you have such a hard time with people being clear and exact about their positions? In my opinion, being clear makes the discussion easier, but there will be no discussion if the other party has no arguments for his position. As for why I would want to discuss with someone outside of God's will, well, that is because this is what God has called me to do. As for Lance, however, you AGAIN sigh clearly misread what I wrote because I do not consider Lance to be clearly ouside the revelatory will of God. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Kay wrote: How, then, David, do you rectify Matt. 11:30... My yoke is easy and my burden is light? That's the point. The yoke of Christ's covenant is not the same as the yoke of the covenant of the law. Acts 15:10 speaks about an unbearable yoke. Define that unbearable yoke that they are talking about. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
Gary wrote: also, KDavid comments, ..may those who love your salvation always say, The LORD be exalted! Yet I am poor and needy [now*]; may the Lord think of me [now*].. (Ps. 40) *presently, beyond his 'Uriah confession/s', [KDavid's sins] are more than the hairs of [his] head, and [his] heart fails within [him].. You seemed to have missed my previous post about Psalm 40. Psalm 40 is a Messianic Psalm. It speaks about the sins of Jesus Christ being more than the hairs of his head. Of course, these are not actual sins that he committed, but the sins of the world which he took upon himself vicariously. Understand that this passage is talking about Jesus Christ, and maybe you won't use the rest of David's confessions to disparage him. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
God did not return to the old. He had a plan right from the start. He knew man would fall. From the very start he planned to give His Son. He still set up the Law so that we would know how to love Him and love our neighbor. Jesus came to make God's covenant with us fuller (Matthew 5:17). He brought better understanding of the Law. He fulfilled the Feast days (some we are still waiting for Him to fulfill.) Matthew 5:18 states that the jot nor the tittle will pass away until heaven and earth pass away. Heaven and earth have not passed away. A new heaven and a new earth are being created. We are preparing for the wedding feast of the Lamb. Until that day comes we are to follow the Law. Jesus clarified that we are to follow the Law in love. Suzy --- Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:30:51 -0500 Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The below would be the essence of what you're saying, Judy. We don't need God's law anymore, it was abolished by Christ on the cross. We certainly aren't fearing God when we aren't obeying, instead making up our own man-made ways of worshipping Him, rather than the way He told us to do it. We've figured out and our plan is so much better than His, wouldn't you agree? Sounds like it to me, otherwise, why not do as He says to do in His commands?? Kay Why would God, restore the old carnal regulations and practices when something far better, with transcendent promises, has arrived? God has made everything new! The new order eclipses the old regulations and practices, which were only shadows of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1). To put it another way, why would God return to the Old after having created the New? This would be regression, not progression. Or, why would God retreat by reinstating the carnal when He has resurrected the spiritual? Why would any believer want to surrender his spiritual status in this new age and return to the carnal, external, and legalistic arrangement under Moses? Well, why? __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
I am sorry, Judy, but I find your defenses very confusing. First you say there is a new covenant that we follow which gets rid of the old (this is my way of saying it). Now you are saying that technically there isn't a new commandment. Which one is it? There is ONE theme throughout the Bible. ONE. God is One. His plan has been the same fromthe very beginning. Suzy --- Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, I think a lot of problems of understanding happen when we do not define our terms in mutually agreeable ways. For example, I understand Levitical law to be more than just ceremonial law. You seem to see it differently. You wrote: Judy wrote: The Levitical or Ceremonial law is what Christ fulfilled but God's moral standard or moral law still stands and this is what we are judged by in the Last Day. I consider the following part of the Levitical law: Leviticus 19:17-18 (17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. (18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. These commandments are moral, aren't they? The biggest problem I have about this idea of differentiating moral law from ceremonial law is the fourth commandment, keep the seventh day sabbath. Is this law ceremonial or moral? Maybe you can answer this first. I'm out of time right now anyway. Peace be with you. David Miller. jt: When I say Ceremonial Law I believe you know what I mean David - The Levitical priesthood, the Temple with it's ritual and sacrifices and all of the feasts which were a shadow of what was to come. As for Commandments, if you want to be technical about it - there is no new Commandment, they have all been there since the beginning and this includes love (see 1 John 3:11, 2 John 5, Lev 19:18) because God does not change and neither does His standard for righteousness and holiness. judyt __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and Hate
Gary paraphrases: ..I myself..in the sinful nature [am] a slave to the law of sin. --the Ap. Paul (Rom 7) Abbreviation gets you in trouble again. Consider the whole context of Paul's message here. Paul describes in Romans 7 his experience of living under the law and in the flesh. He prefaces it with: Romans 7:5 (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Although much of Romans 7 is written in present tense, it is simply a narrative describing the process of how the law and the principle of sin works within a person who has not yet been set free through Jesus Christ. Prior to Romans 7, Paul established very consistently that those in Christ do not sin. Consider: Romans 6:1-2 (1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:6-7 (6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (7) For he that is dead is freed from sin. Romans 6:11-12 (11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Romans 6:14 (14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:16-18 (16) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (17) But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (18) Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Romans 7 describes a life of condemnation being under law in the flesh, but he concludes and moves into Romans 8 showing how Jesus Christ worked something that the law could not work, which is the remission of sins. Romans 8:1-4 (1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. And so Paul boldly stood before the high priest and declared his conscience to be free of sin. The high priest had the same reaction toward him that you might. Acts 23:1-2 (1) And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. John also testified that we are to live like Jesus Christ so that we may have boldness in the day of judgment. 1 John 4:17 (17) Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken?
Lance wrote: I would 'suggest' that God's covenant with Abraham is, in reality, unilateral and, thereby further 'suggesting' that such an covenant does exist. How do you reconcile your suggestion with the Scripture I had quoted where God expected something from Abraham and his descendants? Genesis 17:9-14 (9) And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (10) This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (13) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (14) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. I don't see how you can read this and then suggest that God's covenant with Abraham was unilateral and thereby does not exist. Does anybody else have trouble understanding Lance's view here, or does anybody else see his point and can elucidate it for us? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Oops. Feat was a typo. It should read Feast. Suzy --- Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote: Hmm...why then, Terry, does God repeatedly say it was for the foreigner among them as well? You mention feasts, sacrifices, tithing, and Sabbath. Does this mean we no longer need to tithe or keep the Sabbath? What about the feasts? God says this is a forever commandment regarding Passover, throughout all your generations and that it is for the stranger as well. How come for Sukkot, it was done then, but it isn't done now, but it will be done again in the Kingdom? Do we get a break from these wonderful Feasts and times of joy and fellowship? If we're to do what Jesus did, how come He celebrated these Feasts and we don't have to? How come Paul continued celebrating the Feasts and the Sabbath? Kay P.S. to Kay. Missed answering a couple of your questions. Near as I can figure, when a foriegner was among the Jews, he was expected to do as they did. Jesus kept the law because it was in effect until the moment He said,It is finished! Paul kept the law (at times), because , as he readily admitted, he was trying to be all things to all people, that he might win some to Christ. I cannot find sukkot in my Bible. Terry __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Sukkot is also known as Feat of Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Suzy --- Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote: Hmm...why then, Terry, does God repeatedly say it was for the foreigner among them as well? You mention feasts, sacrifices, tithing, and Sabbath. Does this mean we no longer need to tithe or keep the Sabbath? What about the feasts? God says this is a forever commandment regarding Passover, throughout all your generations and that it is for the stranger as well. How come for Sukkot, it was done then, but it isn't done now, but it will be done again in the Kingdom? Do we get a break from these wonderful Feasts and times of joy and fellowship? If we're to do what Jesus did, how come He celebrated these Feasts and we don't have to? How come Paul continued celebrating the Feasts and the Sabbath? Kay P.S. to Kay. Missed answering a couple of your questions. Near as I can figure, when a foriegner was among the Jews, he was expected to do as they did. Jesus kept the law because it was in effect until the moment He said,It is finished! Paul kept the law (at times), because , as he readily admitted, he was trying to be all things to all people, that he might win some to Christ. I cannot find sukkot in my Bible. Terry __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk]139 - 175 of 613 Commands
That is exactly what we are saying. They all fall under the big two. But you keep saying that we do not have to follow these laws. These are just some of the laws in Torah. We need to follow these, right? Suzy --- Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slade Henson wrote: Question: Are these all done away with since we're in the New Kay 139 Not to have relations with your mother Lev. 18:7 140 Not to have relations with your father's wife Lev. 18:8 141 Not to have relations with your sister Lev. 18:9 142 Not to have relations with your father's wife's daughter Lev. 18:11 143 Not to have relations with your son's daughter Lev. 18:10 144 Not to have relations with your daughter Lev. 18:10 145 Not to have relations with your daughter's daughter Lev. 18:10 146 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter Lev. 18:17 147 Not to have relations with a woman and her son's daughterLev. 18:17 148 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter Lev. 18:17 149 Not to have relations with your father's sisterLev. 18:12 150 Not to have relations with your mother's sisterLev. 18:13 151 Not to have relations with your father's brother's wifeLev. 18:14 152 Not to have relations with your son's wife Lev. 18:15 153 Not to have relations with your brother's wife Lev. 18:16 154 Not to have relations with your wife's sister Lev. 18:18 155 A man must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 156 A woman must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 157 Not to have homosexual relationsLev. 18:22 158 Not to have homosexual relations with your fatherLev. 18:7 159 Not to have homosexual relations with your father's brother Lev. 18:14 160 Not to have relations with a married woman Lev. 18:20 161 Not to have relations with a menstrually impure woman Lev. 18:19 162 Not to marry non-Jews Deut. 7:3 163 Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:4 164 Don't keep a third generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people Deut. 23:8-9 165 Not to refrain from marrying a third generation Edomite convert Deut. 23:8-9 166 Not to let a /mamzer/ marry into the Jewish peopleDeut. 23:3 167 Not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish peopleDeut. 23:2 168 Not to castrate any male (including animals) Lev. 22:24 169 The High Priest must not marry a widow Lev. 21:14 170 The High Priest must not have relations with a widow even outside of marriage Lev. 21:15 171 The High Priest must marry a virgin maiden Lev. 21:13 172 A Kohen must not marry a divorcee Lev. 21:7 173 A Kohen must not marry a /zonah/ (a woman who had forbidden relations) Lev. 21:7 174 A priest must not marry a /chalalah/ (party to or product of 169-172)Lev. 21:7 175 Not to make pleasurable contact with any forbidden woman Lev. 18:6 No Kay. People who love God, love their neighbors, and love themselves will not do these things. They are all covered under the big two. Terry __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Lance wrote: Will you kindly write for us an underived paragraph? I just did. Those were my thoughts, not something derived from someone else. This does not mean that other people have not influenced my thinking in years past, but it means that I do not simply parrot others in the ideas and thoughts that I have. I think for myself. Psychologists talk about different developmental stages in learning. One stage has been explained as a moralizing stage. This is the stage where people believe what they do because their parents or some authority have told them to believe it. Those in this stage of learning include students in school who basically just read others and parrot back what they have read. Some people never progress past this stage, but there is a higher stage of learning that graduates hopefully achieve. Usually it takes a person to be put in a teaching position to begin to develop their own thoughts and ideas and organize them in their own unique way. I could be wrong, but it seems like you stay back in the moralizing stage, thinking that reading and quoting others is as far as you can go. Then you think others who claim to have gone beyond that are deceiving themselves. Am I close? Peace be with you. David Miller. p.s. The paragraphs I wrote above were not derived from other sources. They include concepts and ideas that have impacted me for many years from a wide variety of sources, but I am the only one to blame or praise for what is said because the thinking process that produced those paragraphs are uniquely my own. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken?
I don't save posts, excepting of course those 'created from whole cloth' by my buds (Jonathan John). As you've offered a truncated version of what I said (I don't even save my own highly esteemed posts) I seem to recall answering your question near the end (the 'double move' business)..ergo UNILATERAL. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 14:19 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken? Lance wrote: I would 'suggest' that God's covenant with Abraham is, in reality, unilateral and, thereby further 'suggesting' that such an covenant does exist. How do you reconcile your suggestion with the Scripture I had quoted where God expected something from Abraham and his descendants? Genesis 17:9-14 (9) And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (10) This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (13) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (14) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. I don't see how you can read this and then suggest that God's covenant with Abraham was unilateral and thereby does not exist. Does anybody else have trouble understanding Lance's view here, or does anybody else see his point and can elucidate it for us? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Some would say it is a feat to observe the Feast. Others would say it is a joy and a blessing Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Susan Petersen Sent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2004 14.24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Oops. Feat was a typo. It should read Feast. Suzy wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
No. David, seriously, please identify 15-20 authors who've influenced you. It would be an aid. Plleese? . From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 14:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception Lance wrote: Will you kindly write for us an underived paragraph? I just did. Those were my thoughts, not something derived from someone else. This does not mean that other people have not influenced my thinking in years past, but it means that I do not simply parrot others in the ideas and thoughts that I have. I think for myself. Psychologists talk about different developmental stages in learning. One stage has been explained as a moralizing stage. This is the stage where people believe what they do because their parents or some authority have told them to believe it. Those in this stage of learning include students in school who basically just read others and parrot back what they have read. Some people never progress past this stage, but there is a higher stage of learning that graduates hopefully achieve. Usually it takes a person to be put in a teaching position to begin to develop their own thoughts and ideas and organize them in their own unique way. I could be wrong, but it seems like you stay back in the moralizing stage, thinking that reading and quoting others is as far as you can go. Then you think others who claim to have gone beyond that are deceiving themselves. Am I close? Peace be with you. David Miller. p.s. The paragraphs I wrote above were not derived from other sources. They include concepts and ideas that have impacted me for many years from a wide variety of sources, but I am the only one to blame or praise for what is said because the thinking process that produced those paragraphs are uniquely my own. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Hi David, A few (ok, seven) things to consider: 1) Lance typed up the Karl Barth quote as an addendum to the post he wrote before it. It was not offerred up on its own although I can see why it could be construed that way. Lance attempted to make it clear that it belonged with his earlier post of the day by entitling it Addendum. Lance should have noted who the quote was from as well as its publication. 2) The 4 responses given below apply just as much to what one of us says as it does to that which has been written by someone else. 3) I personally have more confidence in other people's writing than my own. They often phrase something in a way that I am not capable of. They supply certain nuances that make a concept come 'alive' to me. I like to use quotes for this type of occurrence. 4) This forum, in my mind, is for discussing our interaction with what others have written. It is based upon discussing truth, no matter where we find it, but most importantly in scripture. Scripture was written by others. All of them are dead. None of them can appear on this forum to tell us what they really meant. Hence, the differing views presented. I do suspect that the Holy Spirit is present but most of us keep yelling over His quiet voice. 5) Since you have returned to TruthTalk I believe you have made only one original post. All others have been in response to something someone else has said. Many of them, I would suggest, have been you in 'attack' mode. Others have been you attempting to help solve some conflicts in their communication. The former have been less effective than the later. 6) What I think John is pointing out below is that when you responded to Lance you responded with a closed instead of an open concept. It wasn't just This is what I think about what you said/quoted. Let's discuss it. It was - this is anathema and denies not only the gospel but Jesus Christ Himself. Being clear and exact is good. But by reacting in a violent textual manner you immediately place Lance on the defensive. What you could have done was state your opinion, perhaps using less 'charged' words and ask Lance if what you had gotten out of the paragraph is consistent with what Lance got out of the same paragraph. For the record I do not believe you apprehended Barth correctly. I do believe you took one of your own 'pet' doctrines (perfection) and read a disgreement into Barth's words. I may be able to see this because I have read the context around the quote or because I am more familiar with Barth or another reason that I have not thought of. I also may be off my rocker. 7) You mention that there will be no discussion if the other party has no arguments for his position. I would like to suggest that this is one of the reasons there is a disconnect between you, Lance, John and myself. It does appear that you are here to argue, to make logical arguments, have them rectified, and to then move onto the next logical step. Each of your posts is constructed in a very logical manner -- point 1, point 2, if point 1 is true point 2 must also be true etc. A number of scripture bombs are placed usually at the end of the email to enforce that it is not just your opinion, but God's. This is one way of discussing something. The expected conclusion is that if one agrees with each point made then one will come to the same conclusion as the author. This of course does not occur. It can be very frustrating to the logical speaker to have his/her argument pushed aside regardless of how logical it may be. I believe that there is a relational aspect that needs to be forged prior to the logical being effective. It is this relational aspect that you lack with John and Lance. If they do not feel that you are giving credence to their thoughts or 'listening' it becomes a tit for tat, back and forth argument. I personally enjoy theological ping-pong. Lance often tells me that he is too old for it. What I think you truly desire on this forum is discussion, not argument. Although logic can be used in this type of setting the relational aspects are worth focusing on. Proving that somebody is wrong using a logical argument rarely leads to the other person changing. I liked what John said the other day about the difference between unity and unison. We on this forum can be united even if we do not agree on each person's interpretation of a certain doctrine. Judy and I often disagree; yesterday, although we were not in unison, we were united. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception John wrote: Could it be that KB expresses that which Lance believes? David, you might try responding to those words, included by Lance, and see what Lance has to say rather than resorting to the kind of criticism, disguised as honest (no doubt) advice.,
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
My husband has a theory on the shadow of things to come. He says that in order for there to be a shadow there has to be a real object or person casting that shadow. Jesus is the real person casting the shadow. If we take away the shadow then we take away Jesus who is casting that shadow. Suzy --- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: When I say Ceremonial Law I believe you know what I mean David - The Levitical priesthood, the Temple with it's ritual and sacrifices and all of the feasts which were a shadow of what was to come. The problem with defining ceremonial with that which is a shadow is that such sometimes causes a person to ignore the law. If a certain aspect of the law is a shadow, then we need to look hard and long at it. For example, the law concerning Passover should help us understand Christ, since Christ is the Passover lamb. The seventh day Sabbath also is a shadow, just like Passover. Does that mean that you consider the fourth commandment (of the Ten Commandments) to be ceremonial? I really do not know how you would answer this. Your response is reminiscent of the way that John and some others react to my questions. I think my question is honest and sincere and deserves to be answered. Peace be with you. David Miller. p.s. Have you ever considered that marriage itself is a shadow of our relationship to Christ? Nobody would argue that we should do away with marriage just because it is a shadow of something to come. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah
Hi David, Thank you for the compliment. I wrote this piece this morning while the event was still fresh in my mind. A dream of mine is to be published. Now if I could just get him toilet-trained! Jonathan Hughes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah Jonathan, you are a very gifted writer. Did you submit this piece for publication somewhere? Very polished writing. Delightful to read. By the way, I have had five children go through this stage, so I relate to your experience. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilgie. Si vous ntes pas le destinataire vis, s.v.p. en informer immdiatement son expditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dtruire toute copie (lectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire vis est interdite et peut tre illgale. Merci de votre coopration relativement au message susmentionn. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah
I am going through the same frustration with my little boy. Suzy --- Hughes Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi David, Thank you for the compliment. I wrote this piece this morning while the event was still fresh in my mind. A dream of mine is to be published. Now if I could just get him toilet-trained! Jonathan Hughes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Swimming with Noah Jonathan, you are a very gifted writer. Did you submit this piece for publication somewhere? Very polished writing. Delightful to read. By the way, I have had five children go through this stage, so I relate to your experience. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:46:28 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry. What is clear to one is not clear to another. I see ONE HOUSE and ONE servant (Moses) and ONE Son (Yeshua). God is the builder of the ONE house. jt: Have you read Hebrews 3:4, Hebrews 3:5 andHebrews 3:6Slade? Sure the builder of ALL things is God but Vs.5 clearly speaks of Moses being faith in "all his house" and Vs.6. speaks of Christ being faithful as a Son over His house, whose house we are IF we keep all 613 Commands - right? Wrong. PLUS I really wish you would LISTEN to what people say, Judy. NEVER has ANYONE said "613 Commands plus Jesus" STOP accusing people of this.Your trump card does not work in Tic-Tac-Toe! jt: You don't put it exactly this way Slade but what else can you besaying if we Gentiles must receive Christ -(to be accepted) - then go back and be circumcisedpicking up all 613 Commands that were given to Moses on the Mount?
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:48:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 11/15/2004 5:28:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The indicatives of Grace always preceed the imperatives of Law. Take a lookat the paragraph just prior to the decalogue in Exodus. jt: John maybe you could enlighten me about this if you would because what I see just prior to the decalogue in Exodus is God warning Moses to set bounds and keep the people away from the mountain because if they touched it they surely would not live, they would be put to death, stoned, or shot through; (man or beast). And this even after they had washed their garments and consecrated themselves. Where arethese indicatives of Grace Lance refers to?
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Lance wrote: David, seriously, please identify 15-20 authors who've influenced you. It would be an aid. Plleese? I suspect the following isn't what you want, but Moses Job David Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zachariah Malachi Matthew Mark Luke John Paul Peter James Jude I'm not posting the authors above to be funny. They have had the greatest impact upon me. Some more modern authors would include Henry Mushinsky, Glen Wolfenden, Earl McCoy, J.W. Cliburn, Carl Gans, Harry Greene, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, John Platt, Stephen Gould, Douglas Futuyma, Phillip Johnson, Robert Gentry, Philip Schaff, Henry Sheldon, Alfred Edersheim, J.B. Lightfoot, John Lightfoot, John Gill, John Wesley, Adam Clark, Charles Finney, Jonathan Edwards, James Arminius, John Calvin, Martin Luther, ... oops, I think I went over 20. There are many more, of course. I'm not sure how this list would help you. By the way, why are you interested only in authors? Some of the most influential people in my life were not authors so I did not put them on the list. Come to think of it, Jesus was not an author. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] 139 -175 of 613 Commands
Question: Are these all done away with since we're in the New Kay jt: Yes - 1) Fornicators with anyone at all don't inherit the Kingdom 2) Eunuch's for anything other than medical reasons are irrelevant. 3) We are not to be unequally yoked because darkness and light don't mix 4) Our High Priest is not sensually inclined; he procreates spiritually so no problem with forbidden women 139 140 Not to have relations with your father's wife Lev. 18:8 141 Not to have relations with your sister Lev. 18:9 142 Not to have relations with your father's wife's daughter Lev. 18:11 143 Not to have relations with your son's daughter Lev. 18:10 144 Not to have relations with your daughter Lev. 18:10 145 Not to have relations with your daughter's daughter Lev. 18:10 146 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter Lev. 18:17 147 Not to have relations with a woman and her son's daughter Lev. 18:17 148 Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter Lev. 18:17 149 Not to have relations with your father's sister Lev. 18:12 150 Not to have relations with your mother's sister Lev. 18:13 151 Not to have relations with your father's brother's wife Lev. 18:14 152 Not to have relations with your son's wife Lev. 18:15 153 Not to have relations with your brother's wife Lev. 18:16 154 Not to have relations with your wife's sister Lev. 18:18 155 A man must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 156 A woman must not have relations with a beast Lev. 18:23 157 Not to have homosexual relations Lev. 18:22 158 Not to have homosexual relations with your father Lev. 18:7 159 Not to have homosexual relations with your father's brother Lev. 18:14 160 Not to have relations with a married woman Lev. 18:20 161 Not to have relations with a menstrually impure woman Lev. 18:19 162 Not to marry non-Jews Deut. 7:3 163 Not to let Moabite and Ammonite males marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:4 164 Don't keep a third generation Egyptian convert from marrying into the Jewish people Deut. 23:8-9 165 Not to refrain from marrying a third generation Edomite convert Deut. 23:8-9 166 Not to let a mamzer marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:3 167 Not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish people Deut. 23:2 168 Not to castrate any male (including animals) Lev. 22:24 169 The High Priest must not marry a widow Lev. 21:14 170 The High Priest must not have relations with a widow even outside of marriage Lev. 21:15 171 The High Priest must marry a virgin maiden Lev. 21:13 172 A Kohen must not marry a divorcee Lev. 21:7 173 A Kohen must not marry a zonah (a woman who had forbidden relations) Lev. 21:7 174 A priest must not marry a chalalah (party to or product of 169-172) Lev. 21:7 175 Not to make pleasurable contact with any forbidden woman Lev. 18:6
