Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
In a message dated 11/17/2004 1:58:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Suzy, meet Gary, the master of one word replies. MYTH being the predominant one. The fact that he wrote about 5 sentences this week is cause for celebration! I think he just may be coming out of his shell, but it is too soon to tell! Jeff Don't get your hopes up. What actually happened is found in the fact that our brains function as a rather complicated electrical system --- think power surge. That is how one accounts for the multifple worded replies from the Gman -- power surge. This too will pass. J
[TruthTalk] Courtesy of A.Word.A.Day
DAVEH: It is getting pretty bad when I resort to responding to my own posts... My aim is to agitate and disturb people. I'm not selling bread, I'm selling yeast. -Miguel de Unamuno, writer and philosopher (1864-1936) Dave Hansen wrote: David Miller wrote: Dave Hansen wrote: Today I received well over a hundred TT posts. Interestingly, a TTer who once suggested we limit our daily posts to 8, made nearly a quarter (28) of them today! ;-) You are right, Dave. I need to back off. DAVEH: Not at all, DavidM. I'm glad to see you are back in the saddle again. And...it's nice that you are so willing and anxious to post again, even if it exceeds your previously suggested limits. Thanks for helping moderate the list. :-) DAVEH: Moderating?!?!?!?! Naw...I just enjoy needling you whenever I get a chance. ;-) My apologies to everyone for monopolizing the list yesterday. DAVEH: Awe shucks DavidM.now you are making me feel bad for poking you in the ribs. You're just too humble... O:-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Repentance
In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:57:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My view of repentance is to turn from sin. Doesn't the Bible tell us that unless we repent we will perish? When we turn from sin we turn toward Christ. Am I being too simplistic? laura Actually, repent only means to change one's thinking. It doesn't mean to be sinless -- it simply means to change your mind about you and what you are about -- certainly this change of thinking includes a view to the Christ. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
In a message dated 11/17/2004 7:31:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Miller wrote: >>Come to think of it, Jesus was not an author. :-) John wrote: >Actually, He is the author of the book of >Revelation, is He not? I guess I can see how you might argue this from the first verse of Revelation, but I think we have to say that John authored Revelation. If we think about it, Jesus revealed the truth contained in all the books of the Bible, not just Revelation. However, in his wisdom, he chose to inspire men and have them bear witness and author these writings. The subject is all about him, and so I suppose it is prudent that he not testify about himself. By the way, I hope you don't think John was arrogant in that first verse. I can imagine that if I put something like that at the top of something I would write, a lot of people would be accusing me of arrogance. :-) When we think about it, most of the twelve apostles were not authors. Do you think authors are overrated? I THINK JESUS IS THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION. JOHN
Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
In a message dated 11/17/2004 7:23:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:
>David, why in the world can you not simply say,
>"I think this is wrong?" I don't understand why
>you persist on couching the views of others,
>views you disagree with, in complete opposition
>to the biblical message.
I do not characterize all views as anathema. I characterized the viewpoint
that no man can ever be faithful to himself or others as anathema. I stand
by that characterization.
AND MY CRTICAL QUESTION REMAINS UNANSWERED.
Furthermore, let us not lose sight of the fact that the viewpoint I
characterized as such was simply a hypothetical viewpoint. To my knowledge,
nobody on this list has ever claimed to believe such a viewopint.
SO YOU WERE MAKING A CRITICAL OBSERVATION ABOUT NOTHING THAT WAS A PART OF THIS FORUM? VEY IN TEAR ESTING.
I also hope you recognize that some views demand a strong stand (see Jesus
doing it in Mat. 23). Other views can be objected to with more palatable
terms.
NO I DON'T. HARSHNESS IS RESERVED FOR THE PRPPHETS OF GOD. YOU ARE NO PROPHET .
John wrote:
>It is arrogant ("I am definitely right and your views
>are apostate") and once again, such comments have
>NOTHING to do with continued discussion.
I'm sorry, John, that you seem unable to discuss an issue with someone who
vehemently disagrees with you.
DID I SAY THAT COULDN'T DISCUSS WITH SOMEONE WHO IS RUDE AND HARSH IN HIS RESPONSE. NOT THE CASE, GRASSHOPPER. I WILL RESPOND AND DO SO WITH GUSTO -- BUT I WILL REJECT HARSHNESS AND RUDENESS AMONG BRETHREN ON EVERY OCCASION. GET USED TO IT.
I do it all the time. It seems to me to be
much easier to discern truth between two parties discussing something for
which they both have strong convictions at opposite ends. Maybe I have been
watching the Fox news channel too much. :-)
What makes my viewpoint here not arrogant is that it is not my viewpoint.
It is God's viewpoint.
IF YOU ONLY KNEW JUST HOW FUNNY THIS SENTENCE IS, DAVID. AND I MEAN FUNNY AS IN LAUGHTER. IT IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF ARROGANCE TO CONFUSE ONE'S OPINIONS WITH GOD'S VIEWPOINT. IF YOU REALLY THINK THIS TO BE TRUE, WE ARE NOT HAVING A DISCUSSION -- WE ARE HAVING A DIALONGUE ON MY PART AND MONOLOGUE ON YOUR PART. HOW COULD IT BE ANY OTHER WAY. YOUR VIEW IS GOD'S VIEW -- NO CHANCE OF CHANGE ON THAT ONE -- SO ALL THAT YOU SAY ON THIS SITE IN MILLER/GOD TO THE FORUM. IS THAT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING.
I have absolutely no doubt about it. That's faith.
That's integrity. It is not arrogance. It might look like arrogance, but
it is not. On this point, I am right because God says I am right and my
viewpoint is not mine but God's.
Look at it this way. Suppose someone were to write that Jesus Christ never
existed but was invented by men desiring to create a new religion. If I
said that such a view was anathema, Anti-Christ, and a doctrine of demons,
would you think that I was arrogant?
AND YOU SEE THE BELIEFS OF LANCE, MYSELF, JONATHAN, SLADE, JUDYT, BILLY-T, AS EQUAL TO THE ANTI-CHRIST, DOCTRINE OF DEMONS? YES OR NO. IF NO, THE ABOVE QUESTION PROVES NOTHING. IF YES -- WELL, I WILL HAVE TO RECONSIDER MY STAY ON THIS FORUM.
jOHN
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
David Miller wrote: Dave Hansen wrote: Today I received well over a hundred TT posts. Interestingly, a TTer who once suggested we limit our daily posts to 8, made nearly a quarter (28) of them today! ;-) You are right, Dave. I need to back off. DAVEH: Not at all, DavidM. I'm glad to see you are back in the saddle again. And...it's nice that you are so willing and anxious to post again, even if it exceeds your previously suggested limits. Thanks for helping moderate the list. :-) DAVEH: Moderating?!?!?!?! Naw...I just enjoy needling you whenever I get a chance. ;-) My apologies to everyone for monopolizing the list yesterday. DAVEH: Awe shucks DavidM.now you are making me feel bad for poking you in the ribs. You're just too humble... O:-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- "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
You are clearly a comlusive/complusive -- nto able to ignore a single point or narrow a discussion to one or two point. No concern for those who might consider reading the response. You seem to think you might "win" because of many words. My response is in CAPS. John In a message dated 11/17/2004 7:12:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: >KD writes before Nathan points the finger and says, "Thou art the man" in >Ps 7. I'm not sure this was written before Nathan did this, but for the sake of discussion, I will assume this to be true. If you have any evidence that it was, please share it. John wrote: >He not only gives request to the Lord to judge him (David) >on the basis of his own righteousness -- a man who is >guilty of one of the most involved and degenerate of crimes, >but makes it clear that if he were to sin against a friend >(think Uriah) it is his request that he be stomped into the >ground !!! Stupid. Stupid? See, here is my problem. You judge David, a man after God's own heart, as arrogant and now stupid. Who made you such a judge? David's psalm is in our Bible as part of God's Holy Word, preserved for all of mankind, and you call the message of this psalm stupid and arrogant! DAVID WAS SPEAKING FOR DAVID. INSPIRATION AND REVELATION ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THE BIBLICAL MESSAGE IS INSPIRED -- NOT SOMETHING I CAN PROVE, JUST SOMETHING I BELIEVE. WHO MADE ME JUDGE AN HONEST QUESTION NO DOUBT -- THE ANSWER -- IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE ANSWER ISS "I DID." THE BIBLICAL MESSAGE WAS WRITTEN FOR MY UNDERSTANDING. IT SPEAKS TO MY SENSE OF JUDGMENT AND YOURS AND IZZY (THE ENGLISH VERSIONS ONLY) AND LANCE AND SLADE AND SO ON. THE MIRACLE OF "GOD'S WORD" IS THAT ANY NUMBER OF LESSONS CAN BE TAUGHT BY GOD FROM A SINGLE PASSAGE, OH, BY THE WAY --- YOU NEED TO REVISIT READING AND LISTENING 101. I DID NOT CALL THE "MESSAGE" ARROGANT AND STUPID, DID I ? I ATTRIBUTED THOSE ATTITUDES TO KDAVID . DIDN'T I. SO LET'S GET THAT STRAIGHT. ALL YOU ARE TRYING TO DO, HERE, IS PREJUDICE THE JURY. I realize that David does not think like modern theologians and ministers, but the testimony of God is that he was right in everything except the matter of Uriah. What you call arrogant and stupid I call integrity and boldness. I wish you were more like David in psalm 7. I wish everyone was like David in psalm 7 and psalm 51. I USED TO BE EXACTLY LIKE DAVID IN PS 7. ARROGANT AND STUPID WHEN IT CAME TO THE WAYS OF THE LORD. CHANGE IS GOOD. John wrote: >When, in fact , he offers evil to his friend, when, in fact, >he digs a pit and falls into it -- what is his request and >attitude then? It certainly is not STOMP ME INTO THE >GROUND, is it (anyone)? Rather, we find him begging >for mercy. The point is there in black and white. >David says one thing in Ps 7 and something very different >in Ps 51. I agree with you that the message is different because the circumstances are different. GOT THAT RIGHT. BEFORE NATHAN, DAVID WAS A PHONEY (arrogant, stupid and now phoney -- yep, I said all that ABOUT KDAVID). AFTER NATHAN, DAVID BECAME A MAN AFTER GOD'S OWN HEART. James 4 teaches us how to repent in the following passage: James 4:8-10 (8) Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. (9) Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. (10) Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. Are we always to be afflicated and mourn and weep? Are we always to be sad? Of course not. We are to turn happiness to sorrow when we sin and need to repent. But let us realize that this is TEMPORARY while we repent of our sin. We are not to be continually in a state of repentance. Even David said in Psalm 51, ONE ONLY NEEDS TO REPENT ONCE -- IF WE UNDERSTAND THAT REPENT MEANS A CHANGE OF MIND. BUT CONFESSION IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE INVOLVED WITH ON A CONTINUAL BASIS. Psalms 51:12-13 (12) Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. (13) Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. John wrote: >I do not see this [Job] as having any bearing on my comments, >nor does it help me to understand the situation with KDavid. The connection is that a study of Job reveals a man who was very humbled by circumstances. His family and possessions taken, and sickness and boils overtake his body. His friends sit with him in his misery for seven days saying nothing, and then eventually they say words to the effect, "Job, surely you have sinned somewhere and you need to ask God's forgiveness!" This was a huge temptation to Job, to set aside his integrity and say, "Well, I don't know what I did, but surely I must have sin
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants?
ï 1. One OT issue to reconsider perhaps--sparing you the current customary comment 'myth' for now--is that while God leads Moses, God in essence leads Israel (back then); Moses, acc to his own writg, is basically a follower of God, not the leader of Israel in the independent sense depictd, below 2. Also, in the NT, followers of JC grovelling in the Sinai/Torah (below), thereby requiring the contrary esoteric hairsplittg evident even in the NT, is one issue about which the Ap Paul is angered, partic in Gal 4; in his perspectiv, earthly Jerusalem turns on 'Sinai' (which you've linkd effectively/honestly to Torah, below) while heavenly Jerusalem, his 'mother' he says, turns uniquely on the Lord's Spirit; in sum, in Galatians they're cites of the same name, Jerusalem, however, they exist now in opposite 'domains' (a potent Pauline concept related to the KoG itself; E.g., cp. Col 1:13 NIV) G On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:52:02 -0500 "Jeff Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || Moses leads the people out of Egypt to Sinai where Moses is given Godâs law (Torah)..
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants?
ï jt: So Jeff what you are really saying is that when it says "NEW" Covenant and Better Promises in the book of Hebrews what it really means is same Ole, same Ole just "Reworked and Revised; and where we see "OBSOLETE and DYING" this is not so either. IOW We still get to walk after the flesh along with Yeshua and Shaul. and God's Word still can't be trusted to mean what it says. On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:52:02 -0500 "Jeff Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David, From the beginning of Godâs creation God wanted nothing more than a personal relationship with man. But, man chose not to have a relationship with God. During the rise of civilization, which is told in the opening chapters of Genesis, we see that although there were a few Godly men, most of mankind was wicked. God becomes unhappy with mans evil ways and is nearly ready to destroy all of life on the earth. Yet God sees in one man, Noah, the possibility of a people who would be hungry for Him. So, God tells Noah to build the ark and then wipes the earth clean for a second attempt at populating the His creation. God finds with this second attempt that mankind by and large is unwilling to accept His blessings. But, He finds and chooses one man, Abraham, through which He can build a people who want a relationship with Him. Abraham was willing to do as God requested of him, leave this land of idol worshippers and follow Him. It is through Abraham that God promises to bless all of mankind. There are three aspects of the covenant: 1. Land. God promises that the land of Canaan was for the descendants of Abraham. 2. Seed. Abraham is told his line will never be destroyed. Abrahamâs descendants would become as many as the stars, or the grains of sand. 3. Blessing. God promises to bless those who bless Abraham and his descendants and curse those who curse Abraham and his descendants. At a time when most covenants lasted four or five generations, this covenant was meant to be eternal. It is a tangible contract in that God promises land and offspring. Abraham had no difficulty with the land portion, but, Sarah was barren. Abraham said that his servant, Eliazer, would inherit his wealth. God informs Abraham that he will be a father, it is his bloodline that would carry on. The bloodline that would bring us Yeshua. The Abrahamic covenant was the foundation that will be expanded upon and refined as we go through the revisions of the Mosaic, Davidic and Renewed covenants. From Genesis 12 to the end of the book, we see how God prunes and in a sense grooms Abrahamâs offspring in order to build a nation. Isaacâs eldest son, Esau, fails to meet Godâs criteria as firstborn. Instead we read of the scheming that takes place so that Jacob gets the blessing and acts as the firstborn. A recurring theme that shows us that God chooses the âfirstbornâ according to His plan, not the chronological order of birth. We see this also with, Joseph, Moses and David. When we get to Exodus we find that the seed has grown into a nation. However, there is a problem, this Hebrew nation is in bondage. As slaves in Egypt they have become known as a peculiar people because they worship one God in a land of so many gods that it is nearly impossible to count the number of gods. God has another leader who will direct the people in His ways. A messiah of sorts who will lead Godâs chosen people out of bondage and into the land promised to Abraham. Moses leads the people out of Egypt to Sinai where Moses is given Godâs law (Torah) so that the Israelites could know what God expected from them. The Israelites agree to the stipulations of this amended covenant and God gives them the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The sign of this covenant would be the Sabbath. For six days the people could work, but on the seventh day all work would cease. So now Israel had the land promised by God. After a period of time, long by human standards, we come to the next phase of Gods plan. Israel has grown and prospered and now has a king in which the Lord finds favor. It is through David that God chooses to establish His kingship for all eternity. Our King of Kings will come from the line of David, fulfilling the promised seed through which the world will see that there is only one God and one way to eternal life. This is the essence of the Davidic covenant. There is yet one aspect of the Abrahamic covenant to be addressed. It is the blessings of the renewed covenant. Many people believe this is addressed in the New Testament, but the details are revealed in the writings of the Prophets. In a time when much of Israel had strayed and rejected Torah, God sent a prophet, Jeremiah, to call the people back to Him. Jeremiah tells us that if people return to God, He will bless them for all eternity. Jerusal
[TruthTalk] Two Covenants?
ï David, From the beginning of Godâs creation God wanted nothing more than a personal relationship with man. But, man chose not to have a relationship with God. During the rise of civilization, which is told in the opening chapters of Genesis, we see that although there were a few Godly men, most of mankind was wicked. God becomes unhappy with mans evil ways and is nearly ready to destroy all of life on the earth. Yet God sees in one man, Noah, the possibility of a people who would be hungry for Him. So, God tells Noah to build the ark and then wipes the earth clean for a second attempt at populating the His creation. God finds with this second attempt that mankind by and large is unwilling to accept His blessings. But, He finds and chooses one man, Abraham, through which He can build a people who want a relationship with Him. Abraham was willing to do as God requested of him, leave this land of idol worshippers and follow Him. It is through Abraham that God promises to bless all of mankind. There are three aspects of the covenant: 1. Land. God promises that the land of Canaan was for the descendants of Abraham. 2. Seed. Abraham is told his line will never be destroyed. Abrahamâs descendants would become as many as the stars, or the grains of sand. 3. Blessing. God promises to bless those who bless Abraham and his descendants and curse those who curse Abraham and his descendants. At a time when most covenants lasted four or five generations, this covenant was meant to be eternal. It is a tangible contract in that God promises land and offspring. Abraham had no difficulty with the land portion, but, Sarah was barren. Abraham said that his servant, Eliazer, would inherit his wealth. God informs Abraham that he will be a father, it is his bloodline that would carry on. The bloodline that would bring us Yeshua. The Abrahamic covenant was the foundation that will be expanded upon and refined as we go through the revisions of the Mosaic, Davidic and Renewed covenants. From Genesis 12 to the end of the book, we see how God prunes and in a sense grooms Abrahamâs offspring in order to build a nation. Isaacâs eldest son, Esau, fails to meet Godâs criteria as firstborn. Instead we read of the scheming that takes place so that Jacob gets the blessing and acts as the firstborn. A recurring theme that shows us that God chooses the âfirstbornâ according to His plan, not the chronological order of birth. We see this also with, Joseph, Moses and David. When we get to Exodus we find that the seed has grown into a nation. However, there is a problem, this Hebrew nation is in bondage. As slaves in Egypt they have become known as a peculiar people because they worship one God in a land of so many gods that it is nearly impossible to count the number of gods. God has another leader who will direct the people in His ways. A messiah of sorts who will lead Godâs chosen people out of bondage and into the land promised to Abraham. Moses leads the people out of Egypt to Sinai where Moses is given Godâs law (Torah) so that the Israelites could know what God expected from them. The Israelites agree to the stipulations of this amended covenant and God gives them the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The sign of this covenant would be the Sabbath. For six days the people could work, but on the seventh day all work would cease. So now Israel had the land promised by God. After a period of time, long by human standards, we come to the next phase of Gods plan. Israel has grown and prospered and now has a king in which the Lord finds favor. It is through David that God chooses to establish His kingship for all eternity. Our King of Kings will come from the line of David, fulfilling the promised seed through which the world will see that there is only one God and one way to eternal life. This is the essence of the Davidic covenant. There is yet one aspect of the Abrahamic covenant to be addressed. It is the blessings of the renewed covenant. Many people believe this is addressed in the New Testament, but the details are revealed in the writings of the Prophets. In a time when much of Israel had strayed and rejected Torah, God sent a prophet, Jeremiah, to call the people back to Him. Jeremiah tells us that if people return to God, He will bless them for all eternity. Jerusalem will live in peace and all the world will know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All the people of the world will have an intimate relationship with God through Yeshua. All will have Torah written on their hearts. The New Testament is empty and senseless without seeing that it is an expansion of the Older Testament. The New, or rather Renewed Testament, reinforces and rebuilds Gods Covenant as it was intended from the very beginning. Much like the constitution of the USA, God's covenant has been amended several times. Do we in the USA have a new constitution today that has replace the ori
Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
ï Sometimes a little tongue-in-cheek-humor heps with the cipherin' don't it? Jes call me Po' ol Jeff! - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 20:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands > Jeff Powers wrote:> >> Terry,>> I don't know what translation Kay is using but try these:>> Lev 11:44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, >> because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that >> moves about on the ground. NIV Lev 11:44 For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify >> yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: neither shall ye >> defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon >> the earth. KJV Lev 11:44 For I am Jehovah your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, >> and be ye holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with >> any manner of creeping thing that moveth upon the earth. ASV Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, >> and be ye holy; for I am holy; neither shall ye defile yourselves with >> any manner of swarming thing that moveth upon the earth. JPS Lev 11:44 ego enim sum Dominus Deus vester sancti estote quoniam et >> ego sanctus sum ne polluatis animas vestras in omni reptili quod >> movetur super terram How about in Latin? Lev 11:44 áÏÎ áÎá ÎáÎÎ ÎáÏÎÎÏ á ÎÎáÏ áÎáÎ, ÎÎá áÎÎÎÏÎáÏÎÏÎÎ ÎÎá á >> áÏÎÏÎÎ, áÏÎ áÎÎáÏ ÎáÎÎ áÎá ÎáÏÎÎÏ á ÎÎáÏ áÎáÎ, ÎÎá Îá ÎáÏÎ ÏáÏ >> ÏÏÏáÏ áÎáÎ áÎ ÏáÏÎÎ ÏÎáÏ áÏÏÎÏÎáÏ ÏÎáÏ ÏÎáÎÎÎÏ áÏá ÏáÏ ÎáÏÎ LXX >> Or maybe Greek? Maybe the Hebrew original: Lev 11:44 ×× ××× ×× × ×× ×× ×× × ××× ××× >> × ××Ö ×××Ö× × ××Ö× Sorry Terry I couldn't resist! Jeff> > I 'preciate your effort and your clarification. I have heard of people > speaking in tongues, but this is the first time I have ever seen anyone > write in tongues. You can learn sumpthin new every day on this list. :-)> Terry> > --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Walking in the Spirit
I wish I had the way with words that you do!
For everyone else, I have seen a verse thrown at Slade
and he responds verbally just as quick and in even more detail! Not that this
needs anything more. Love it. But then thats why I like studying
with you anyway!
Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004
21:22
Subject: [TruthTalk] Walking in the
Spirit
This
is Slade's understanding of the following passage. Please understand the
bracketed passages are Slade's interpretation.
Therefore there is now no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus [Torah] has set you free from the law of sin
and of death [the
prescribed punishment for rebellion]. For what the Law could not do [to give salvation through
works], weak as it was through the flesh, God {did} sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh and {as
an offering} for sin [to give salvation through
faith], He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law
might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit [in Torah].
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the
things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things
of the Spirit [which
is the Torah lifestyle].
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on
the Spirit is life and peace [which is Torah], because the mind set on the
flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the
law [Torah] of God, for it is not even
able to do so, (Romans
8:1-7)
Now,
if you'd be so kind, let me further explain some foundational truths as I
understand them:
"And He,
when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and
judgment..." (John 16:8)
The "He" in this passage is the Spirit of the Holy One
(i.e., the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, etc.) and the task He performs is the
same task Judy and others have said Torah holds... the schoolmaster that
leads to Messiah. The schoolmaster teaches us our sinful nature and our
need for Messiah. John 16:8 tells us this is a role of the
Spirit.
"A Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those
who turn from transgression in Jacob," declares the LORD "As for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the
LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your
mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your
offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring, says the LORD,
"from now and forever. Arise, shine; for
your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon
you" (Isaiah
59:20-60:1)
This
passage begins with the promise of Messiah for those who turn from
transgression. Once this turning occurs, He bestows the Spirit AND he puts
His words in the mouth.
"Moreover, I
will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove
the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of
flesh. I will put My Spirit within
you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe
My ordinances." (Ezekiel
36:26-27)
This passage must refer to a point after the turning from
transgression because the Spirit is given after "conversion." Therefore,
after conversion, the Spirit allows us to walk in Torah (the
statutes). Therefore, a person with the Spirit will be careful to observe
the commandments of God.
To return to the original passage, I remind you of Romans 8:4
which states, "...so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in
us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
When I take the perspectives from the other verses stated here, I see that
"walking according to the Spirit" is walking in submission to Torah and
obeying the commandments of God.
By the way, Dave. I did not refer to commentaries to construct
this idea.
-- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
thought so! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 21:21 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Gender differences Ever since Eve. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:27 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences Izzy, my late wife had a saying and I now have to ask, is this passed on from mother to daughter"I'm right, and you are wrong, now I don't want to hear another word!" Is that passed on? Jeff :) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 19:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Gender differences . (Even when we dont agree, Im glad he has to take the blame if hes wrong! J ) Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Repentance
a/nothr good reason to stik with King James?:) On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:03:22 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: understood:) On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:59:28 -0500 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Ryrie is a liberal? =According to my way of thinking he is.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
Ever since Eve. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences Izzy, my late wife had a saying and I now have to ask, is this passed on from mother to daughter"I'm right, and you are wrong, now I don't want to hear another word!" Is that passed on? Jeff :) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 19:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Gender differences . (Even when we don’t agree, I’m glad he has to take the blame if he’s wrong! J ) Izzy
[TruthTalk] Walking in the Spirit
This
is Slade's understanding of the following passage. Please understand the
bracketed passages are Slade's interpretation.
Therefore there is now no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus [Torah] has set you free from the law of sin
and of death [the
prescribed punishment for rebellion]. For what the Law could not do [to give salvation through
works], weak as it was through the flesh, God {did} sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh and {as
an offering} for sin [to give salvation through
faith], He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law
might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according
to the Spirit [in
Torah]. For those who
are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but
those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit [which is the Torah
lifestyle].
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on
the Spirit is life and peace [which is Torah], because the mind set on the
flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the
law [Torah] of God, for it is not even
able to do so, (Romans
8:1-7)
Now,
if you'd be so kind, let me further explain some foundational truths as I
understand them:
"And He, when
He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and
judgment..." (John 16:8)
The "He" in this passage is the Spirit of the Holy One (i.e.,
the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, etc.) and the task He performs is the same task
Judy and others have said Torah holds... the schoolmaster that leads to
Messiah. The schoolmaster teaches us our sinful nature and our need for
Messiah. John 16:8 tells us this is a role of the
Spirit.
"A Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those
who turn from transgression in Jacob," declares the LORD "As
for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit which is
upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from
your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your
offspring's offspring, says the LORD, "from now and forever. Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the
glory of the LORD has risen upon you" (Isaiah 59:20-60:1)
This
passage begins with the promise of Messiah for those who turn from
transgression. Once this turning occurs, He bestows the Spirit AND he puts
His words in the mouth.
"Moreover, I
will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove
the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of
flesh. I will put My Spirit within
you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe
My ordinances." (Ezekiel
36:26-27)
This passage must refer to a point after the turning from
transgression because the Spirit is given after "conversion." Therefore,
after conversion, the Spirit allows us to walk in Torah (the statutes).
Therefore, a person with the Spirit will be careful to observe the
commandments of God.
To return to the original passage, I remind you of Romans 8:4
which states, "...so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in
us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
When I take the perspectives from the other verses stated here, I see that
"walking according to the Spirit" is walking in submission to Torah and obeying
the commandments of God.
By the way, Dave. I did not refer to commentaries to construct
this idea.
-- slade
Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
Jeff Powers wrote: Terry, I don't know what translation Kay is using but try these: Lev 11:44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. NIV Lev 11:44 For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. KJV Lev 11:44 For I am Jehovah your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that moveth upon the earth. ASV Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy; neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moveth upon the earth. JPS Lev 11:44 ego enim sum Dominus Deus vester sancti estote quoniam et ego sanctus sum ne polluatis animas vestras in omni reptili quod movetur super terram How about in Latin? Lev 11:44 áÏÎ áÎá ÎáÎÎ ÎáÏÎÎÏ á ÎÎáÏ áÎáÎ, ÎÎá áÎÎÎÏÎáÏÎÏÎÎ ÎÎá á áÏÎÏÎÎ, áÏÎ áÎÎáÏ ÎáÎÎ áÎá ÎáÏÎÎÏ á ÎÎáÏ áÎáÎ, ÎÎá Îá ÎáÏÎ ÏáÏ ÏÏÏáÏ áÎáÎ áÎ ÏáÏÎÎ ÏÎáÏ áÏÏÎÏÎáÏ ÏÎáÏ ÏÎáÎÎÎÏ áÏá ÏáÏ ÎáÏÎ LXX Or maybe Greek? Maybe the Hebrew original: Lev 11:44 ×× ××× ×× × ×× ×× ×× × ××× ××× × ××Ö ×××Ö× × ××Ö× Sorry Terry I couldn't resist! Jeff I 'preciate your effort and your clarification. I have heard of people speaking in tongues, but this is the first time I have ever seen anyone write in tongues. You can learn sumpthin new every day on this list. :-) Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Repentance
understood:) On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:59:28 -0500 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Ryrie is a liberal? =According to my way of thinking he is.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Repentance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Ryrie is a liberal? = According to my way of thinking he is. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Heavy Yoke Light Yoke
myth [E.g., (DavidM and) you argue/d from a faulty biblical text that 'two women are two covenants'; now you are revolvg the same covenants around the/ir sons] On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:48:58 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..David Miller writes [wisdom from the Spirit of God by way of the apostle Paul] ..Abraham had two sons.. the child of the flesh .. the child of promise ..
Re: [TruthTalk] New Covenant or Renewed Covenant?
11/16, DavidM: >Romans 7..is..describing..a person >who has not yet been set free through Jesus Christ. ^^ myth (some solemn sagacity servin' St. Suzy) acc to King James, the Ap. Paul's 'brethren', below, are engaged perhaps 'even married..to him who is raised from the dead' in this cntxt, check out his use of the word 'we', below On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:39:47 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DavidM re: Rom 7:(4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the bodyof Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raisedfrom the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
[TruthTalk] New Covenant or Renewed Covenant?
From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The covenant needed to be renewed because the King who made the covenant died and was resurrected. -- slade jt: Don't think so Slade. Covenants require a death and Covenant necessitates Blood (Hebrews 9:16) Jesus is mediator of a New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8). It is a better Covenant enacted on better promises (Hebrews 8:6-8) and this Covenant was not validated until He entered the Holy Place in heaven with his own blood. Renewed Covenant is not an option because the first was in the process of becoming obsolete ie: "When He said a New Covenant, He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (Hebrews 8:13) judyt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David MillerSlade wrote: ... use this forum as a way to practice vocalizing your opinions David M: Let me help you practice vocalizing your opinions, Slade. :-) I have observed your tendency to view the New Covenant as a Renewed Covenant. I have heard some arguments for the "Renewed Covenant" being the proper translation, but I also have observed that you are not too dogmatic about that point. So let me ask you to express your viewpoint about the Covenants by asking for your commentary on the following passage: Romans 7:1-4(1) Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? (2) For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Please do not post the commentary of others unless you simply must credit them with a quote that you believe best expresses your viewpoint. Feel free to consult whoever or whatever resources you like, but ultimately I would like to hear directly from you about this passage and be able to respond directly to your comments. It seems to me that this passage (Rom. 7:1-4) sets up a situation whereby those in Christ must not only divorce themselves from the law, but be dead to the law, that they might be MARRIED TO ANOTHER. Can you explain what this means in terms of your view of a "Renewed Covenant" versus a "New Covenant." Would you view a widow who married another man to have "renewed" her marriage contract, or would you view her as being in a "new" marriage contract? Peace be with you.David Miller.
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish'
-- The Five Books of Moses (The Schocken Bible Series) -- translated by Everett Fox (A great translation of the first five books of the Bible) -- Pirkei Avos with insights of the Sfas Emes and other Chassidic Masters -- anthologized by R. Yosef Stern (A great translation and discussion on the finest book not in the Bible) -- Messiah Volume 1 and 2 -- by Avi Ben Mordechai (A good set of books to help begin understanding the Eastern mindset) -- Studying The Torah -- Avigdor Bonchek (A plain-sense way of interpreting the Text of the Bible) - Hebrew Though Compared to Greek -- by Thorlief Boman (Not for the weak; self-explanatory title) -- The Complete Artscroll Siddur-- translated by R. Nosson Scherman (What one man calls rote another calls enjoying the Kavanah of another) -- Young's Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible -- by Robert Young (I like this better than Strong's) -- Midrash and Lection in Matthew -- by M D Goulder (There's MUCH more to Matthew than first meets the ears)-- Light For an Age of Confusion -- by R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel (A great discussion on the importance of a Biblical lifestyle) -- Hebrew Gospel of Matthew -- by George Howard (A good discussion on the possibility that Matthew was first in Hebrew) -- The Aramaic Bible (19-Volumes) -- published by Liturgical Press (The Aramaic paraphrases of the Older Testament. Helps explain the Rabbinic mindset) -- The New Greek/English Interlinear New Testament -- translated by Brown, Comfort, and Douglas (I like getting the story from the horse's mouth) --- The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts -- by Comfort and Barrett (This is a helpful book to determine which translation may be the most correct) -- The Interlinear Bible -- by Jay P Green (Again, I like to see the Hebrew or Greek when trying to understand Scripture) I hope this list [in no particular order] is a large enough. -- slade -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' 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
[TruthTalk] Heavy Yoke Light Yoke
From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>No I do not agree. I see one covenant from God... Avraham's. I will explainin a few days. slade jt: But what about what David Miller writes - wisdom from the Spirit of God by way of the apostle Paul - Abraham had two sons and the child of the flesh stayed in a fritz with the child of promise continually do you just dismiss this? So the yoke of bondage is the covenant that comes from mount Sinai and continued in Jerusalem at this time. It is represented by the slave woman Hagar and her child. Paul sees TWO COVENANTS. Do you agree? I can certainly see how legalism is a part of this, just as we might say the letter of the law was part of this, but there is this bigger picture that must be dealt with, and that is the idea of covenant as a basis of relationship with God. One either derives his family relationship with God from Hagar / Sinai / Torah / Jerusalem or he derives his relationship from Sarah / Heavenly Mount Zion / Jesus Christ / Heavenly Jerusalem. Maybe we are saying the same thing with different words. Let me know your thoughts, specifically about the question of two covenants. I'm still waiting to hear your answer about Romans 7 also.
Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
Terry, I don't know what translation Kay is using but try these: Lev 11:44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. NIV Lev 11:44 For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. KJV Lev 11:44 For I am Jehovah your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that moveth upon the earth. ASV Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy; neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moveth upon the earth. JPS Lev 11:44 ego enim sum Dominus Deus vester sancti estote quoniam et ego sanctus sum ne polluatis animas vestras in omni reptili quod movetur super terram How about in Latin? Lev 11:44 áÏÎ áÎá ÎáÎÎ ÎáÏÎÎÏ á ÎÎáÏ áÎáÎ, ÎÎá áÎÎÎÏÎáÏÎÏÎÎ ÎÎá á áÏÎÏÎÎ, áÏÎ áÎÎáÏ ÎáÎÎ áÎá ÎáÏÎÎÏ á ÎÎáÏ áÎáÎ, ÎÎá Îá ÎáÏÎ ÏáÏ ÏÏÏáÏ áÎáÎ áÎ ÏáÏÎÎ ÏÎáÏ áÏÏÎÏÎáÏ ÏÎáÏ ÏÎáÎÎÎÏ áÏá ÏáÏ ÎáÏÎ LXX Or maybe Greek? Maybe the Hebrew original: Lev 11:44 ×× ××× ×× × ×× ×× ×× × ××× ××× × ××Ö ×××Ö× × ××Ö× Sorry Terry I couldn't resist! Jeff - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 18:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Then why is #185 in there? Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Maggots ain't kosher Terry! Try locusts if ya want to eat bugs, they are kosher! Jeff - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 13:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands ShieldsFamily wrote: #195 and #196 are not correct translations of the Word, if I remember correctly. Isn't the commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk? How they ever came up with that meaning is beyond me. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- Quick! I'm hungry! How do you tell a kosher maggot from the garden variety? Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "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, sen
RE: [TruthTalk] New Covenant or Renewed Covenant?
The covenant needed to be renewed because the King who made the covenant died and was resurrected. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, 15 November, 2004 17.50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] New Covenant or Renewed Covenant? Slade wrote: > ... use this forum as a way to practice > vocalizing your opinions Let me help you practice vocalizing your opinions, Slade. :-) I have observed your tendency to view the New Covenant as a Renewed Covenant. I have heard some arguments for the "Renewed Covenant" being the proper translation, but I also have observed that you are not too dogmatic about that point. So let me ask you to express your viewpoint about the Covenants by asking for your commentary on the following passage: Romans 7:1-4 (1) Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? (2) For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Please do not post the commentary of others unless you simply must credit them with a quote that you believe best expresses your viewpoint. Feel free to consult whoever or whatever resources you like, but ultimately I would like to hear directly from you about this passage and be able to respond directly to your comments. It seems to me that this passage (Rom. 7:1-4) sets up a situation whereby those in Christ must not only divorce themselves from the law, but be dead to the law, that they might be MARRIED TO ANOTHER. Can you explain what this means in terms of your view of a "Renewed Covenant" versus a "New Covenant." Would you view a widow who married another man to have "renewed" her marriage contract, or would you view her as being in a "new" marriage contract? 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] Heavy Yoke Light Yoke
No I do not agree. I see one covenant from God... Avraham's. I will explain in a few days. -- slade -- "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] 966666666666663.176 - 203 of 613 Commands
jt: In the Oct 28 message below I had just learned that when you and Slade say Torah you are speaking of something entirely other than I am when I say Torah - I had been under the impression that we were all saying the same thing since we all profess to be "in Christ" and to be honest I still can't figure why anyone would choose a yoke like that. On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:12:29 -0500 "Jeff Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well looky here, Judy is just arguing away, and the other day asked how we got on the subject of posting the 613 commandments in the first place! Look at the below message from Oct. 28 Judy. IT WAS YOU!! Jeff From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Thursday, 28 October, 2004 06.57Judyt: Once more I stand corrected. I was under the impression we were all talking about the same thing. Now I see we are not - 613 Commandments, you've got to be kidding? Last I heard mention of this was through Ellsman.. So I did a search and found "Ask Moses" (modern day you understand) who tells me there are 248 positive and 365 negative commandments for a total of 613. What a load whereas Jesus says "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" so I would much rather learn from Him. I'm sorry Jeff and Slade as I thought we were talking about the same thing. When I say Torah I mean the writings of Moses as revealed by the Spirit of God without all of the add ons and extras. I see where the Kaballah (that occult business Madonna is into) is attached to this in some way also which further complicates things. One poor soul who is just beginning to learn of Jewish heritage wrote that every day they were learning about another law or commandment and they were worn out and overwhelmed by all the mitzvot! Whew!! Kay, do you do all this as well?? - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 18:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 963.176 - 203 of 613 Commands (1) He interprets it himself. Ask him! (2) So you could have a stumbling block. Funny how you wanted to know what the command were and now listen at yourself. Mocking. Stumbling. Why is you heart so unteachable? Scratch that. Don't answer that question. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 08.42To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 963.176 - 203 of 613 Commands On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:22:19 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Here's some that will be balked at. Kay jt: (1) What then is the point of Peter's vision on the rooftop before he went to the house of Cornelius? (2) And why are we instructed not to make these kinds of distinctions because all things are good and sanctified by prayer with thanksgiving?
RE: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
Thank you, Laura for noticing the subtly of the passage. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 12.57To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:49:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: How do you know this woman was repentant? I've never heard that before but I have heard ppl comment on the hypocrisy of bringing her to Jesus and letting the man involved off (she didn't commit adultery by herself); also if there is so much grace and warm fuzzies going on how is it that Paul was scourged five times by the Jews while doing the Lord's ministry? Would Christ have forgiven her and sent her on her way if she was not repentant? Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
Izzy, my late wife had a saying and I now have to ask, is this passed on from mother to daughter"I'm right, and you are wrong, now I don't want to hear another word!" Is that passed on? Jeff :) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 19:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Gender differences . (Even when we dont agree, Im glad he has to take the blame if hes wrong! J ) Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Repentance
Charles Ryrie is a liberal? On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:13:34 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ryrie is a liberal translation of the Bible... ||
Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
Then why is #185 in there? Terry Jeff Powers wrote: Maggots ain't kosher Terry! Try locusts if ya want to eat bugs, they are kosher! Jeff - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 13:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands ShieldsFamily wrote: #195 and #196 are not correct translations of the Word, if I remember correctly. Isn't the commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk? How they ever came up with that meaning is beyond me. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- Quick! I'm hungry! How do you tell a kosher maggot from the garden variety? Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "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]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
A quick aside to the listing of the Levitical Laws: Are the following commands by God considered part of the Levetical Law or God's moral law? I get a bit confused as some of the laws I consider to be moral are included in what is often called the ceremonial list. 1) Be fruitful and mulitply 2) Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Does anyone believe that these two commands still function today? Jonathan (1) Feel free to be fruitful and multiply (sounds like you have made a good start.) (2) If you can still find the tree of good and evil I'd be surprised. Maybe it's at the bottom of the sea on Atlantis? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
Not all men have done this. Christ in a man makes him into a “real” man (not a Girlie Man!) This may also be assisted by an encouraging woman (rather than a whiner, complainer, controller). We’ve all seen both types of men and both types of women. I am so content when my husband is strong spiritually as well as every other way. (Even when we don’t agree, I’m glad he has to take the blame if he’s wrong! J ) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences Amen ladies!!! Please keep this thread alive. I'd love to 'listen in' on more. Men (we) have 'vacated' and women (you) have had to occupy that 'vacated' space. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 17, 2004 13:37 Subject: [TruthTalk] Gender differences From: Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yeah, Judy We agree. I am exicted about this. jt: That's good Suzy - me too! Love is genderless. I also believe that women should not teach unless there is no man that is qualified to do so. Deborah was made a judge because no man was qualified to fill that position. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for the men of that time. It was God's way of saying if you don't step up to the plate, I'll put someone else in who will. As for David's comments, I agree with some of them. I do believe that men have to be more manlike. jt: I would say it depends what one means by "manlike" To me 'manlike' nothing like Mel Gibson playing Wm Wallace or Arnold S. of CA because all that is outward. I am drawn to inward or 'spiritual' strength. Apparently Paul was not too impressive outwardly and neither was Jesus according to the prophecy of Isaiah. In churches you do see pastors not preaching on a certain subject because a select few have decided what you can preach about and what you can't. I went to a church like that. God help anyone who dare make someone feel convicted about something. Let's just stick to the easy stuff and never grow to the next level of your faith. jt: People pleasers and there sure are a lot of those. Some congregations won't put up with anything but an ear tickler. But I don't neccessarily agree that it is the women who are totally responsible for men not being more manlike. I am sure they have played a part in that process. Why did the men not stand up? Why did they give in to such a pressure that they allowed themselves to be backed into a corner? And could they have possibly be put in that corner by other men? jt: They come by 'blaming the women' honestly - it goes all the way back to the first Adam and is part of the fallen nature of mankind in general. There are too many women who are left with the responsibility to be the spiritual head of their family through no fault of their own. Some are widowed by death or abandonment and others are spiritual widows so these women have to take on what God did not originally equip them for - but it doesn't have to be a total disaster. Timothy's mother and grandmother did a pretty good job of it. Paul was a manly man and he speaks of love being gentle and kind, not jealous etc... in First Corinthians. If men to be more manlike than they need to start loving properly. jt: We agree wholeheartedly again Susan - this is getting better and better :) ATST too many men are wounded and need healing themselves. I've heard that up to 90% of men in our churches have not knows the love of a natural father. They may have had fathers who loved them but they were so stoic that they could not tell them that or give them a hug... this is more fallout from generational sin. Please do not take this as man bashing on my part. And I don't believe that all men suffer from the problem that you have discussed. Suzy jt: I don't believe you would ever be mistaken for a 'man basher' Suzy. I see what you are saying and think that very few men have escaped and none of us know how to love as we should - but we can learn... > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Judy wrote: > Being 'easily offended" happens to both men and > women David and has > nothing to do with feminized conversations > and emasculated men. Do love and good manners have > to be genderized? > >From whence are the roots of such > a concept as this? > > If you were a man, you might understand this better. > To tell you the > truth, you are more a man than many men I have met, > so this puts you at a > disadvantage in considering this question. In > talking about this to you, > I feel kind of like someone making a point to an > Olympic female weight > lifter that women tend to be physically weaker than > men. If she is > stronger than most men, it might not make a whole > lot of sense to
RE: [TruthTalk] Repentance
Jonathan, I believe that repentance requires (1) humbly admitting your sin, (2) turning from it to righteousness. Izzy (PS Ryrie is a liberal translation of the Bible. No wonder you like it.) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Repentance This could be a good time to make a few random comments on repentance. A few days ago Terry asked John why the outline of parts of his faith didn't include the word repentance. Most people on this forum believe that repentance is necessary for salvation; they see it as a necessary step or condition for God to do His act of justification in our hearts. Some may find it interesting to note that John's gospel does not use the word 'repent' once. The concept of repentance is completely absent. Now John states that the purpose of his gospel is to bring people to faith in Christ (John 20:31). Knowing this is his purpose we must ask ourselves why John doesn't use the concept of repentance to illustrate the nature of the gospel. Instead John uses the concept of belief. Here is Charles Ryrie regarding the absence of repentance in the book of John: "And yet John surely had many opportunities to use it in the events of our Lord’s life which he recorded. It would have been most appropriate to use repent or repentance in the account of the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus. But believe is the word used (John 3:12, 15). So, If Nicodemus needed to repent, believe must be a synonym; else how could the Lord have failed to use the word repent when talking to him? To the Samaritan harlot, Christ did not say repent. He told her to ask (John 4:10), and when her testimony and the Lord’s spread to other Samaritans, John recorded not that they repented but that they believed (vss. 39, 41-42). There are about fifty more occurrences of “believe” or “faith” in the Gospel of John, but not one use of “repent.” The climax is John 20:31: “These have been written that you may believe . . . and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation, Victor Books, p. 98)." The Greek word for repentance is 'metanoia' which means 'a change of mind'. It represents a 180 degree turn in the opposite direction. What it does not include is what many of us add to the concept of repentance which is - feeling sorry for something we have done. The fact that we equate 'feeling sorry' with repentance illustrates how we have integrated the Roman Catholic doctrine of penitence with repentance. Repentance, New Testament style, is belief or faith. It is God breaking into our fallen minds, transforming them so that we are able to become free. We must always keep in mind who the author and finisher of our faith is: Jesus Christ. He who began the good work in us is faithful to complete it. No act (repentance, belief, faith, baptism, circumcision, obedience) of our own can save us. It is God and God only who saves. We are given the grace to respond. I think it would be worthwhile to extrapolate these thoughts to a discussion of what occurs in forgiveness since repentance and forgiveness are often closely linked in our minds. For further research on the Greek words for repentance please see the following article: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1989ii/Wilkin.html. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:49:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: How do you know this woman was repentant? I've never heard that before but I have heard ppl comment on the hypocrisy of bringing her to Jesus and letting the man involved off (she didn't commit adultery by herself); also if there is so much grace and warm fuzzies going on how is it that Paul was scourged five times by the Jews while doing the Lord's ministry? Would Christ have forgiven her and sent her on her way if she was not repentant? Laura 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 per
Re: [TruthTalk] 966666666666663.176 - 203 of 613 Commands
Well looky here, Judy is just arguing away, and the other day asked how we got on the subject of posting the 613 commandments in the first place! Look at the below message from Oct. 28 Judy. IT WAS YOU!! Jeff -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Thursday, 28 October, 2004 06.57To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Early Jewish Chrisitan Church Judyt: Once more I stand corrected. I was under the impression we were all talking about the same thing. Now I see we are not - 613 Commandments, you've got to be kidding? Last I heard mention of this was through Ellsman.. So I did a search and found "Ask Moses" (modern day you understand) who tells me there are 248 positive and 365 negative commandments for a total of 613. What a load whereas Jesus says "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" so I would much rather learn from Him. I'm sorry Jeff and Slade as I thought we were talking about the same thing. When I say Torah I mean the writings of Moses as revealed by the Spirit of God without all of the add ons and extras. I see where the Kaballah (that occult business Madonna is into) is attached to this in some way also which further complicates things. One poor soul who is just beginning to learn of Jewish heritage wrote that every day they were learning about another law or commandment and they were worn out and overwhelmed by all the mitzvot! Whew!! Kay, do you do all this as well?? - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 18:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 963.176 - 203 of 613 Commands (1) He interprets it himself. Ask him! (2) So you could have a stumbling block. Funny how you wanted to know what the command were and now listen at yourself. Mocking. Stumbling. Why is you heart so unteachable? Scratch that. Don't answer that question. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 08.42To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 963.176 - 203 of 613 Commands On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:22:19 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Here's some that will be balked at. Kay jt: (1) What then is the point of Peter's vision on the rooftop before he went to the house of Cornelius? (2) And why are we instructed not to make these kinds of distinctions because all things are good and sanctified by prayer with thanksgiving?
RE: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Not to be greedy, but couldn't you do both? :-) Izzy -Original Message- Would you prefer me not to reply, but instead use my time to write some articles to post here from time to time? I have been considering that such might be a better use of my time right now. I have two articles on my mind right now. 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
Thank you for each and every post, David. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Dave Hansen wrote: > Today I received well over a hundred TT posts. Interestingly, a TTer who > once suggested we limit our daily posts to 8, made nearly a quarter (28) > of them today! ;-) You are right, Dave. I need to back off. Thanks for helping moderate the list. :-) My apologies to everyone for monopolizing the list yesterday. 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] 966666666666663.176 - 203 of 613 Commands
(1) He interprets it himself. Ask him! (2) So you could have a stumbling block. Funny how you wanted to know what the command were and now listen at yourself. Mocking. Stumbling. Why is you heart so unteachable? Scratch that. Don't answer that question. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 08.42To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 963.176 - 203 of 613 Commands On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:22:19 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Here's some that will be balked at. Kay jt: (1) What then is the point of Peter's vision on the rooftop before he went to the house of Cornelius? (2) And why are we instructed not to make these kinds of distinctions because all things are good and sanctified by prayer with thanksgiving?
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
understood On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:04:25 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..just forget it please it's not important - If you want to be understood you will make an effort to communicate ||
Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
ï 1.Be fruitful and multiply? DEFINATELY Unfortunately, God took my mate, so someone else has to fill in the gap for me. At least for now ;) If ever again. Now this may ruffle a few feathers here, but sex is a gift from God, why not honor Him by being fruitful with your spouse. 2.Well now Jonathan this one could get a bit tricky! I think we all agree that the tree was not an apple tree, right? I suppose it could still apply, but, as we are not in the Garden, I think that it would be quite difficult to find the tree. There are a number of Midrashic ideas (in Judaism and Christianity) concerning this, so make it easier on me, what do you think the tree is? Jeff - Original Message - From: "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 14:30 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands A quick aside to the listing of the Levitical Laws: Are the followingcommands by God considered part of the Levetical Law or God's moral law?I get a bit confused as some of the laws I consider to be moral areincluded in what is often called the ceremonial list.1) Be fruitful and mulitply2) Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evilDoes anyone believe that these two commands still function today?JonathanThis 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 sây rattachant contiennent de lâinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do 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]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
So why all the "kosher kitchens"? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Right you are, Izzy. It simply says don't boil a kid in its mother's milk. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 09.29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands #195 and #196 are not correct translations of the Word, if I remember correctly. Isn't the commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk? How they ever came up with that meaning is beyond me. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- "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: Fwd: [TruthTalk] Repentance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My view of repentance is to turn from sin. Doesn't the Bible tell us that unless we repent we will perish? When we turn from sin we turn toward Christ. Am I being too simplistic? laura Not too simplistic Laura. You're doing just fine. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
Not any more - just forget it please it's not important - If you want to be understood you will make an effort to communicate ... judyt On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:15:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: just submitg your questions, eh? On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:39:01 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || I am not seeking your counsel ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
just submitg your questions, eh? On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:39:01 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || I am not seeking your counsel ||
Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
Maggots ain't kosher Terry! Try locusts if ya want to eat bugs, they are kosher! Jeff - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 13:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands ShieldsFamily wrote: #195 and #196 are not correct translations of the Word, if I remember correctly. Isn't the commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk? How they ever came up with that meaning is beyond me. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- Quick! I'm hungry! How do you tell a kosher maggot from the garden variety? Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "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] Two Covenants
Suzy, meet Gary, the master of one word replies. MYTH being the predominant one. The fact that he wrote about 5 sentences this week is cause for celebration! I think he just may be coming out of his shell, but it is too soon to tell! Jeff - Original Message - From: "Susan Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants I'm not sure who you are because I don't think you have ever given your name. But, I would appreciate it if you would expound on your idea that these comments are a myth. A lot of times you write "myth." That does not help the reader see how it is a "myth" or "concept is not true." How is it a myth. Why is the concept not true. Please expound. Suzy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (the ff. concept is not true) On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:15:46 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || >Sha'ul specifically says, "these women are two covenants." __ 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. -- "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] Two Covenants
Paul - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 16:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants who's shaul? On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:05:27 -0800 (PST) Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> I'm not sure who you are because I don't think you> have ever given your name. But, I would appreciate it> if you would expound on your idea that these comments> are a myth. A lot of times you write "myth." That does> not help the reader see how it is a "myth" or "concept> is not true." How is it a myth. Why is the concept not> true. Please expound. > > Suzy> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > myth (the ff. concept is not true)> > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:15:46 -0500 "David Miller"> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > writes:> > ||> > >Sha'ul specifically says, "these women are two> > covenants."> > > ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
re: > > "The[/]se women are [*the] two [*opposite] covenants.. also, "The[] women [represent] two [opposing] covenants.. -- On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:40:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (is brevity germane to 'abbreviating'? is it the othr way around? :) (anyway, weighg the MSS evidence available allows the correction/s, below*, somewhere within the tolerence/s of the KJV and NIV renderings of Gal 4) On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:32:54 -0800 (PST) Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Please explain what [Gal 4] should be translated.> > Suzy> > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > myth (the translation is faulty)> > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:11:46 -0500 Judy Taylor> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > asserts:> > "The[/]se women are [*the] two [*opposite] covenants..||
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
(is brevity germane to 'abbreviating'? is it the othr way around? :) (anyway, weighg the MSS evidence available allows the correction/s, below*, somewhere within the tolerence/s of the KJV and NIV renderings of Gal 4) On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:32:54 -0800 (PST) Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Please explain what [Gal 4] should be translated.> > Suzy> > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > myth (the translation is faulty)> > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:11:46 -0500 Judy Taylor> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > asserts:> > "The[/]se women are [*the] two [*opposite] covenants..||
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
you're welcome On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:12:04 -0800 (PST) Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Thank you for this explanation It really helps in> understanding your post.> > Suzy||
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Currently Florida - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 22:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands In a message dated 11/16/2004 4:00:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeff in Red: - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:19Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 CommandsJohn, 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 expand on this. I don't have time this morning.Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 21:59Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 CommandsIn 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? Yes John. But when we learn the commandments we see that many do not apply to each one of us. Of those that do apply we are to follow the example of Yeshua and obey them. I find it interresting that the reason mankind cannot keep Torah is the fact that we CHOOSE not to be obedient. Yes, I include myself in this statement. Is it possible to obey all of Torah, yes. 2) Since I am a Gentile -- where in scripture is Mosaical Law bound upon me in Jesus? I guess that depends on how you view Yeshua. Is He not the Lamb of God, the Passover Lamb? Thats what 1Cor. 5:7 tells us. Or John 1:29 &1:36. I realize this is a bit worn out (sort of), but WWJD? Look at the gospel accounts and tell me how many time the Passover is mentioned and in what context? You will see that Yeshua and his Talmidim are observing Passover. Hmm, If Yeshua celebrates Passover shouldn't we? So let me throw these at you and ask that you explain to me what they mean to you: Exodus 12:19,12:48 (remembering that the Jerusalem Council did away with this one. Though we may have to discuss this one in detal later, lets skip the bloodshed for now!), Exodus 12:49, 20:10, 23:12, 16:29, Leviticus 16:29, 17:8-15, 19:34, there are a lot more in Lev. but I think you can understand the point here. Numbers 9:14, 15:14, A real biggie in this context, Numbers 15:15,"The community is to have the same rules for you and the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before YHVH. THE SAME LAWS AND REGULATIONS WILL APPLY BOTH TO YOU AND TO THE ALIEN LIVING AMONG YOU." If you really want I can go on and on, but as James said in the decision in Acts 15:21, "Moses is taught in the assemblies each Sabbath..." (My translation), the meaning of this verse is that Gentiles coming into the Kingdom of YHVH would learn the Torah in bite sized portions and begin to apply Torah as YHVH moved them. I believe we have made the point clear that you and I agree that the Father and the Son are one and the same so this shouldn't be too difficult. One point I almost forgot, depending on your translation, Gentile may be translated, stranger, alien, foreigner, gentile, etc. from the Hebrew.3) Am I nonetheless a brother in Christ ? Definitely Yes, I look forward to personally meeting you, if not in this time then in the world to come!!JeffJohn Thanks, Jeff. And thanks fro taking the time. What part of the country is home?John
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
who's shaul? On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:05:27 -0800 (PST) Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> I'm not sure who you are because I don't think you> have ever given your name. But, I would appreciate it> if you would expound on your idea that these comments> are a myth. A lot of times you write "myth." That does> not help the reader see how it is a "myth" or "concept> is not true." How is it a myth. Why is the concept not> true. Please expound. > > Suzy> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > myth (the ff. concept is not true)> > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:15:46 -0500 "David Miller"> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > writes:> > ||> > >Sha'ul specifically says, "these women are two> > covenants."> > > ||
[TruthTalk] King David and sin
Hi David, You mention below that God says that David was right in everything except the matter of Uriah. How do you understand the passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1-30 (parallelled in 2 Samuel 24:1-25) regarding David's sin of numbering the people? How do you incorporate this 'sin' with the matter of Uriah? I do not see the parallel between them. If they are indeed distinct I believe you will find that it is just you (and not God) that thinks that David only sinned in the matter of Uriah. Some further information on this sin of David's and why this was considered a sin (taken from http://www.learnthebible.org/L-136_david's_sin_in_numbering_the_people.h tm): a. David did not take up the required offering (Exodus 30:12-16) b. David sinned in the pride of having a great army (1) He was counting soldiers (v.9) (2) He took his eyes off the Lord and put them on his own resources (v.3; 1Chronicles 21:3); the entire purpose of the numbering was so that David might know the number of the people (v.2) (3) Even Joab saw the wickedness of this act (1Chronicles 21:6) Jonathan David: I realize that David does not think like modern theologians and ministers, but the testimony of God is that he was right in everything except the matter of Uriah. 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 sây rattachant contiennent de lâinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ. -- "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 meant to include the heavenly temple. And Jesus is the High Priest. This is what Hebrews 8:6 is talking about a better way. Actually being in heaven with the original temple and the Jesus the High Priest. Suzy --- Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > > jt: Suzy your husband's theory makes scientific > sense but when applied to > the ceremonial system given to Moses on the mount. > The real was the > heavenly sanctuary and Moses was told to make > everything exactly > according to the pattern that was given to him ie: > > "On earth there are those who offer gifts according > to the Law who serve > a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things, just as > Moses was warned by > God when he was about to erect the tabernacle for, > "See He says that you > make all things according to the pattern which was > shown you on the > mountain" (Exodus 25:40, Hebrews 8:4,5). > > and of the heavenly > Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the > things in the heavens to > be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things > themselves with better > sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a > holy place made with > hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven > itself, now to appear > in the presence of God for us" (Hebrews 9:23,24) > > > > > > --- 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. __ 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] Gender differences
I would like to see men take the place that God has intended for them. I don't know what the men on this list are like in their homes, except for Slade and Jeff. But I am committing myself to pray for you gentlemen that you would take your place IF you haven't and that you would be excellent examples to other men to take their place as well. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if there were only ten righteous men. I am praying that the righteous men will stand up. Suzy --- Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Amen ladies!!! Please keep this thread alive. > I'd love to 'listen in' on more. Men (we) have > 'vacated' and women (you) have had to occupy that > 'vacated' space. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: November 17, 2004 13:37 > Subject: [TruthTalk] Gender differences > > > > > From: Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yeah, Judy We agree. I am exicted about this. > > jt: That's good Suzy - me too! > > Love is genderless. I also believe that women > should not teach unless there is no man that is > qualified to do so. Deborah was made a judge because > no man was qualified to fill that position. It was > supposed to be a slap in the face for the men of > that time. It was God's way of saying if you don't > step up to the plate, I'll put someone else in who > will. As for David's comments, I agree with some of > them. I do believe that men have to be more manlike. > > > jt: I would say it depends what one means by > "manlike" To me 'manlike' nothing like Mel Gibson > playing Wm Wallace or Arnold S. of CA because all > that is outward. I am drawn to inward or 'spiritual' > strength. Apparently Paul was not too impressive > outwardly and neither was Jesus according to the > prophecy of Isaiah. > > In churches you do see pastors not preaching on a > certain subject because a select few have decided > what you can preach about and what you can't. I went > to a church like that. God help anyone who dare make > someone feel convicted about something. Let's just > stick to the easy stuff and never grow to the next > level of your faith. > > jt: People pleasers and there sure are a lot of > those. Some congregations won't put up with anything > but an ear tickler. > > But I don't neccessarily agree that it is the > women who are totally responsible for men not being > more manlike. I am sure they have played a part in > that process. Why did the men not stand up? Why did > they give in to such a pressure that they allowed > themselves to be backed into a corner? And could > they have possibly be put in that corner by other > men? > > jt: They come by 'blaming the women' honestly - it > goes all the way back to the first Adam and is part > of the fallen nature of mankind in general. There > are too many women who are left with the > responsibility to be the spiritual head of their > family through no fault of their own. Some are > widowed by death or abandonment and others are > spiritual widows so these women have to take on what > God did not originally equip them for - but it > doesn't have to be a total disaster. Timothy's > mother and grandmother did a pretty good job of it. > > Paul was a manly man and he speaks of love being > gentle and kind, not jealous etc... in First > Corinthians. If men to be more manlike than they > need to start loving properly. > > jt: We agree wholeheartedly again Susan - this is > getting better and better :) ATST too many men are > wounded and need healing themselves. I've heard that > up to 90% of men in our churches have not knows the > love of a natural father. They may have had fathers > who loved them but they were so stoic that they > could not tell them that or give them a hug... this > is more fallout from generational sin. > > Please do not take this as man bashing on my part. > And I don't believe that all men suffer from the > problem that you have discussed. Suzy > > jt: I don't believe you would ever be mistaken for > a 'man basher' Suzy. I see what you are saying and > think that very few men have escaped and none of us > know how to love as we should - but we can learn... > > > > > > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Judy wrote: > > Being 'easily offended" happens to both men and > > women David and has > > nothing to do with feminized conversations > > and emasculated men. Do love and good manners > have > > to be genderized? > > >From whence are the roots of such > > a concept as this? > > > > If you were a man, you might understand this > better. > > To tell you the > > truth, you are more a man than many men I have > met, > > so this puts you at a > > disadvantage in considering this question. In > > talking about this to you, > > I feel kind of like someone making a point to an > > Olympic female weight > > lifter that women tend to be physically weaker > than > > men. If she is > > stronger than most men, it might not
Fwd: [TruthTalk] Repentance
My view of repentance is to turn from sin. Doesn't the Bible tell us that unless we repent we will perish? When we turn from sin we turn toward Christ. Am I being too simplistic? laura --- Begin Message --- This could be a good time to make a few random comments on repentance. A few days ago Terry asked John why the outline of parts of his faith didn't include the word repentance. Most people on this forum believe that repentance is necessary for salvation; they see it as a necessary step or condition for God to do His act of justification in our hearts. Some may find it interesting to note that John's gospel does not use the word 'repent' once. The concept of repentance is completely absent. Now John states that the purpose of his gospel is to bring people to faith in Christ (John 20:31). Knowing this is his purpose we must ask ourselves why John doesn't use the concept of repentance to illustrate the nature of the gospel. Instead John uses the concept of belief. Here is Charles Ryrie regarding the absence of repentance in the book of John: "And yet John surely had many opportunities to use it in the events of our Lord’s life which he recorded. It would have been most appropriate to use repent or repentance in the account of the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus. But believe is the word used (John 3:12, 15). So, If Nicodemus needed to repent, believe must be a synonym; else how could the Lord have failed to use the word repent when talking to him? To the Samaritan harlot, Christ did not say repent. He told her to ask (John 4:10), and when her testimony and the Lord’s spread to other Samaritans, John recorded not that they repented but that they believed (vss. 39, 41-42). There are about fifty more occurrences of “believe” or “faith” in the Gospel of John, but not one use of “repent.” The climax is John 20:31: “These have been written that you may believe . . . and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation, Victor Books, p. 98)." The Greek word for repentance is 'metanoia' which means 'a change of mind'. It represents a 180 degree turn in the opposite direction. What it does not include is what many of us add to the concept of repentance which is - feeling sorry for something we have done. The fact that we equate 'feeling sorry' with repentance illustrates how we have integrated the Roman Catholic doctrine of penitence with repentance. Repentance, New Testament style, is belief or faith. It is God breaking into our fallen minds, transforming them so that we are able to become free. We must always keep in mind who the author and finisher of our faith is: Jesus Christ. He who began the good work in us is faithful to complete it. No act (repentance, belief, faith, baptism, circumcision, obedience) of our own can save us. It is God and God only who saves. We are given the grace to respond. I think it would be worthwhile to extrapolate these thoughts to a discussion of what occurs in forgiveness since repentance and forgiveness are often closely linked in our minds. For further research on the Greek words for repentance please see the following article: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1989ii/Wilkin.html. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:57 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:49:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: How do you know this woman was repentant? I've never heard that before but I have heard ppl comment on the hypocrisy of bringing her to Jesus and letting the man involved off (she didn't commit adultery by herself); also if there is so much grace and warm fuzzies going on how is it that Paul was scourged five times by the Jews while doing the Lord's ministry? Would Christ have forgiven her and sent her on her way if she was not repentant? Laura 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. --- End Mes
[TruthTalk] 613 Commands
From: Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>My husband has a theory on the shadow of things to come. He says that in order for there to be a shadowthere 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 jt: Suzy your husband's theory makes scientific sense but when applied to the ceremonial system given to Moses on the mount. The real was the heavenly sanctuary and Moses was told to make everything exactly according to the pattern that was given to him ie: "On earth there are those who offer gifts according to the Law who serve a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle for, "See He says that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain" (Exodus 25:40, Hebrews 8:4,5). and of the heavenly Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (Hebrews 9:23,24) --- 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]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
A quick aside to the listing of the Levitical Laws: Are the following commands by God considered part of the Levetical Law or God's moral law? I get a bit confused as some of the laws I consider to be moral are included in what is often called the ceremonial list. 1) Be fruitful and mulitply 2) Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Does anyone believe that these two commands still function today? Jonathan 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 sây rattachant contiennent de lâinformation confidentielle et privilÃgiÃe. Si vous nâÃtes pas le destinataire visÃ, s.v.p. en informer immÃdiatement son expÃditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dÃtruire toute copie (Ãlectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visà est interdite et peut Ãtre illÃgale. Merci de votre coopÃration relativement au message susmentionnÃ. -- "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]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
ShieldsFamily wrote: #195 and #196 are not correct translations of the Word, if I remember correctly. Isn't the commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk? How they ever came up with that meaning is beyond me. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- Quick! I'm hungry! How do you tell a kosher maggot from the garden variety? Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
Amen ladies!!! Please keep this thread alive. I'd love to 'listen in' on more. Men (we) have 'vacated' and women (you) have had to occupy that 'vacated' space. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 17, 2004 13:37 Subject: [TruthTalk] Gender differences From: Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Yeah, Judy We agree. I am exicted about this. jt: That's good Suzy - me too! Love is genderless. I also believe that women should not teach unless there is no man that is qualified to do so. Deborah was made a judge because no man was qualified to fill that position. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for the men of that time. It was God's way of saying if you don't step up to the plate, I'll put someone else in who will. As for David's comments, I agree with some of them. I do believe that men have to be more manlike. jt: I would say it depends what one means by "manlike" To me 'manlike' nothing like Mel Gibson playing Wm Wallace or Arnold S. of CA because all that is outward. I am drawn to inward or 'spiritual' strength. Apparently Paul was not too impressive outwardly and neither was Jesus according to the prophecy of Isaiah. In churches you do see pastors not preaching on a certain subject because a select few have decided what you can preach about and what you can't. I went to a church like that. God help anyone who dare make someone feel convicted about something. Let's just stick to the easy stuff and never grow to the next level of your faith. jt: People pleasers and there sure are a lot of those. Some congregations won't put up with anything but an ear tickler. But I don't neccessarily agree that it is the women who are totally responsible for men not being more manlike. I am sure they have played a part in that process. Why did the men not stand up? Why did they give in to such a pressure that they allowed themselves to be backed into a corner? And could they have possibly be put in that corner by other men? jt: They come by 'blaming the women' honestly - it goes all the way back to the first Adam and is part of the fallen nature of mankind in general. There are too many women who are left with the responsibility to be the spiritual head of their family through no fault of their own. Some are widowed by death or abandonment and others are spiritual widows so these women have to take on what God did not originally equip them for - but it doesn't have to be a total disaster. Timothy's mother and grandmother did a pretty good job of it. Paul was a manly man and he speaks of love being gentle and kind, not jealous etc... in First Corinthians. If men to be more manlike than they need to start loving properly. jt: We agree wholeheartedly again Susan - this is getting better and better :) ATST too many men are wounded and need healing themselves. I've heard that up to 90% of men in our churches have not knows the love of a natural father. They may have had fathers who loved them but they were so stoic that they could not tell them that or give them a hug... this is more fallout from generational sin. Please do not take this as man bashing on my part. And I don't believe that all men suffer from the problem that you have discussed. Suzy jt: I don't believe you would ever be mistaken for a 'man basher' Suzy. I see what you are saying and think that very few men have escaped and none of us know how to love as we should - but we can learn... > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Judy wrote:> Being 'easily offended" happens to both men and> women David and has> nothing to do with feminized conversations> and emasculated men. Do love and good manners have> to be genderized? > >From whence are the roots of such> a concept as this?> > If you were a man, you might understand this better.> To tell you the> truth, you are more a man than many men I have met,> so this puts you at a> disadvantage in considering this question. In> talking about this to you,> I feel kind of like someone making a point to an> Olympic female weight> lifter that women tend to be physically weaker than> men. If she is> stronger than most men, it might not make a whole> lot of sense to her.> > jt: This morning my car quit on the highway and so> did our cell phone; I> sure wasn't making like an Olympic female weight> lifter out there. It was> a long way back to the gas station so I prayed for a> good Samaritan and> the Lord sent one - a Ditch Witch man with a working> cell phone who said> he wouldn't like for his wife to be out there on the> highway... it's such> a blessing when God provides.> > Historically, our rules of manners have come from> women. We invariably> turn to the female sex for sensitivity about> politeness and manners. > Sur
[TruthTalk] Repentance
This could be a good time to make a few random comments on repentance. A few days ago Terry asked John why the outline of parts of his faith didn't include the word repentance. Most people on this forum believe that repentance is necessary for salvation; they see it as a necessary step or condition for God to do His act of justification in our hearts. Some may find it interesting to note that John's gospel does not use the word 'repent' once. The concept of repentance is completely absent. Now John states that the purpose of his gospel is to bring people to faith in Christ (John 20:31). Knowing this is his purpose we must ask ourselves why John doesn't use the concept of repentance to illustrate the nature of the gospel. Instead John uses the concept of belief. Here is Charles Ryrie regarding the absence of repentance in the book of John: "And yet John surely had many opportunities to use it in the events of our Lord’s life which he recorded. It would have been most appropriate to use repent or repentance in the account of the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus. But believe is the word used (John 3:12, 15). So, If Nicodemus needed to repent, believe must be a synonym; else how could the Lord have failed to use the word repent when talking to him? To the Samaritan harlot, Christ did not say repent. He told her to ask (John 4:10), and when her testimony and the Lord’s spread to other Samaritans, John recorded not that they repented but that they believed (vss. 39, 41-42). There are about fifty more occurrences of “believe” or “faith” in the Gospel of John, but not one use of “repent.” The climax is John 20:31: “These have been written that you may believe . . . and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation, Victor Books, p. 98)." The Greek word for repentance is 'metanoia' which means 'a change of mind'. It represents a 180 degree turn in the opposite direction. What it does not include is what many of us add to the concept of repentance which is - feeling sorry for something we have done. The fact that we equate 'feeling sorry' with repentance illustrates how we have integrated the Roman Catholic doctrine of penitence with repentance. Repentance, New Testament style, is belief or faith. It is God breaking into our fallen minds, transforming them so that we are able to become free. We must always keep in mind who the author and finisher of our faith is: Jesus Christ. He who began the good work in us is faithful to complete it. No act (repentance, belief, faith, baptism, circumcision, obedience) of our own can save us. It is God and God only who saves. We are given the grace to respond. I think it would be worthwhile to extrapolate these thoughts to a discussion of what occurs in forgiveness since repentance and forgiveness are often closely linked in our minds. For further research on the Greek words for repentance please see the following article: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1989ii/Wilkin.html. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:57 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:49:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: How do you know this woman was repentant? I've never heard that before but I have heard ppl comment on the hypocrisy of bringing her to Jesus and letting the man involved off (she didn't commit adultery by herself); also if there is so much grace and warm fuzzies going on how is it that Paul was scourged five times by the Jews while doing the Lord's ministry? Would Christ have forgiven her and sent her on her way if she was not repentant? Laura 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.
[TruthTalk] Gender differences
From: Susan Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Yeah, Judy We agree. I am exicted about this. jt: That's good Suzy - me too! Love is genderless. I also believe that women should not teach unless there is no man that is qualified to do so. Deborah was made a judge because no man was qualified to fill that position. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for the men of that time. It was God's way of saying if you don't step up to the plate, I'll put someone else in who will. As for David's comments, I agree with some of them. I do believe that men have to be more manlike. jt: I would say it depends what one means by "manlike" To me 'manlike' nothing like Mel Gibson playing Wm Wallace or Arnold S. of CA because all that is outward. I am drawn to inward or 'spiritual' strength. Apparently Paul was not too impressive outwardly and neither was Jesus according to the prophecy of Isaiah. In churches you do see pastors not preaching on a certain subject because a select few have decided what you can preach about and what you can't. I went to a church like that. God help anyone who dare make someone feel convicted about something. Let's just stick to the easy stuff and never grow to the next level of your faith. jt: People pleasers and there sure are a lot of those. Some congregations won't put up with anything but an ear tickler. But I don't neccessarily agree that it is the women who are totally responsible for men not being more manlike. I am sure they have played a part in that process. Why did the men not stand up? Why did they give in to such a pressure that they allowed themselves to be backed into a corner? And could they have possibly be put in that corner by other men? jt: They come by 'blaming the women' honestly - it goes all the way back to the first Adam and is part of the fallen nature of mankind in general. There are too many women who are left with the responsibility to be the spiritual head of their family through no fault of their own. Some are widowed by death or abandonment and others are spiritual widows so these women have to take on what God did not originally equip them for - but it doesn't have to be a total disaster. Timothy's mother and grandmother did a pretty good job of it. Paul was a manly man and he speaks of love being gentle and kind, not jealous etc... in First Corinthians. If men to be more manlike than they need to start loving properly. jt: We agree wholeheartedly again Susan - this is getting better and better :) ATST too many men are wounded and need healing themselves. I've heard that up to 90% of men in our churches have not knows the love of a natural father. They may have had fathers who loved them but they were so stoic that they could not tell them that or give them a hug... this is more fallout from generational sin. Please do not take this as man bashing on my part. And I don't believe that all men suffer from the problem that you have discussed. Suzy jt: I don't believe you would ever be mistaken for a 'man basher' Suzy. I see what you are saying and think that very few men have escaped and none of us know how to love as we should - but we can learn... > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Judy wrote:> Being 'easily offended" happens to both men and> women David and has> nothing to do with feminized conversations> and emasculated men. Do love and good manners have> to be genderized? > >From whence are the roots of such> a concept as this?> > If you were a man, you might understand this better.> To tell you the> truth, you are more a man than many men I have met,> so this puts you at a> disadvantage in considering this question. In> talking about this to you,> I feel kind of like someone making a point to an> Olympic female weight> lifter that women tend to be physically weaker than> men. If she is> stronger than most men, it might not make a whole> lot of sense to her.> > jt: This morning my car quit on the highway and so> did our cell phone; I> sure wasn't making like an Olympic female weight> lifter out there. It was> a long way back to the gas station so I prayed for a> good Samaritan and> the Lord sent one - a Ditch Witch man with a working> cell phone who said> he wouldn't like for his wife to be out there on the> highway... it's such> a blessing when God provides.> > Historically, our rules of manners have come from> women. We invariably> turn to the female sex for sensitivity about> politeness and manners. > Surely the phrase "Miss Manners" means a little more> than "Mr. Manners"> to you.> > jt: I look more to Jesus than to Miss Manners for> sensitivity and> empathy. He is the one who raised the status of the> women of his> generation by allowing Mary to sit at his feet and> learn which was> unheard of in Judaism - since He is our example for> life and godliness> why would gender be a big deal?> > The problem is that when women determine the rules>
Re: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:56:47 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:49:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: How do you know this woman was repentant? I've never heard that before but I have heard ppl comment on the hypocrisy of bringing her to Jesus and letting the man involved off (she didn't commit adultery by herself); also if there is so much grace and warm fuzzies going on how is it that Paul was scourged five times by the Jews while doing the Lord's ministry? Would Christ have forgiven her and sent her on her way if she was not repentant? Laura jt: I don't think we can assume that she was repentant right at that moment. She may have been sorry she was caught in the act - sorry isn't exactly the same, it's more like a 'crying drunk' and the sorrow of the world only works death. But Jesus only did what he first saw the Father doing so possibly repentance would be a future reality for this woman since Jesus told her to "go and sin no more" which would be repentance as a way of life. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
In a message dated 11/17/2004 11:49:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: How do you know this woman was repentant? I've never heard that before but I have heard ppl comment on the hypocrisy of bringing her to Jesus and letting the man involved off (she didn't commit adultery by herself); also if there is so much grace and warm fuzzies going on how is it that Paul was scourged five times by the Jews while doing the Lord's ministry? Would Christ have forgiven her and sent her on her way if she was not repentant? Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] 119 - 138 of 613 Commands
jt: How do you know this woman was repentant? I've never heard that before but I have heard ppl comment on the hypocrisy of bringing her to Jesus and letting the man involved off (she didn't commit adultery by herself); also if there is so much grace and warm fuzzies going on how is it that Paul was scourged five times by the Jews while doing the Lord's ministry? On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:53:24 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Beautiful example of Grace. Even in the times before Yeshua's death, the Levites did not authorize the stoning of a person when they were repentant. After all, a Sanhedrin who authorized the capitol punishment of a single person on 75 years was called a bloody Sanhedrin. God didn't have David killed because of his repentance. This doesn't mean "thou shalt not murder" is no longer applicable. -- slade On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:56:42 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 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. jt: Apparently this is also obsolete because Jesus didn't stone the woman caught in adultery, neither did he give her bitter waters to drink. He told her to "go and sin no more" - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily What are the laws of the Sotah in #136? Izzy
[TruthTalk] Heavy Yoke Light Yoke
From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Please tell me where Scripture says the Law of Moses is a hard yoke? Now...before you get your panties all in a knot, please remember that there is aheavy yoke in Scripture: Legalism (the belief that Law -- if followed --will grant Eternal Life). Aside form THAT yoke, show me one... -- slade jt: A yoke of bondage and a yoke of slavery are one and the same Slade; they both have to do with sin. We can be slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness but it is not possible to be both at the same time. A person yoked with bondage is a slave to sin. This is why the Galatians could not be under the law and being led by the Spirit in faith at the same time. Also there is no way for any Jew to keep the law today no matter how much the zeal because the day of atonement is a thing of bygone days and today there are no sacrifices and no Levitical priesthood period. judyt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David MillerKay wrote:> How, then, David, do you rectify Matt. 11:30...> My yoke is easy and my burden is light? Dave Wrote:That's the point. The yoke of Christ's covenant is not the same as the yokeof the covenant of the law. Acts 15:10 speaks about an unbearable yoke.Define that unbearable yoke that they are talking about. --"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] Heavy Yoke Light Yoke
David Miller wrote: What Scripture shows you that legalism is defined in the way that you define it Slade wrote: Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. To me, Galatians 5:4 is the cornerstone to understand Galatians. To assume anything else from Galatians is to cause Paul to talk out of both sides of his mouth. There is another way besides invoking the concept of legalism to understand Paul without making him talk out of both sides of his mouth. Besides "legalism" there is the concept of two covenants. David Miller wrote: Where does Scripture teach that legalism is the yoke being talked about? Slade wrote: Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? I hope this answers your questions, Dave Miller. Well, it seems a little weak, Slade. Don't you think the letter to the Galatians better defines the yoke of bondage? Galatians 5:1 (1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Notice the theme of "liberty," being made free in Christ, and not being entangled with the yoke of bondage. I use context to derive an understanding of this yoke of bondage. So what was Paul just talking about, that used these same terms? Galatians 4:22-31, 5:1-4 (22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. (28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. (1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (2) Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (4) Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. So the yoke of bondage is the covenant that comes from mount Sinai and continued in Jerusalem at this time. It is represented by the slave woman Hagar and her child. Paul sees TWO COVENANTS. Do you agree? I can certainly see how legalism is a part of this, just as we might say the letter of the law was part of this, but there is this bigger picture that must be dealt with, and that is the idea of covenant as a basis of relationship with God. One either derives his family relationship with God from Hagar / Sinai / Torah / Jerusalem or he derives his relationship from Sarah / Heavenly Mount Zion / Jesus Christ / Heavenly Jerusalem. Maybe we are saying the same thing with different words. Let me know your thoughts, specifically about the question of two covenants. I'm still waiting to hear your answer about Romans 7 also. 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
Dave Hansen wrote: Today I received well over a hundred TT posts. Interestingly, a TTer who once suggested we limit our daily posts to 8, made nearly a quarter (28) of them today! ;-) You are right, Dave. I need to back off. Thanks for helping moderate the list. :-) My apologies to everyone for monopolizing the list yesterday. 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
David Miller wrote: Come to think of it, Jesus was not an author. :-) John wrote: Actually, He is the author of the book of Revelation, is He not? I guess I can see how you might argue this from the first verse of Revelation, but I think we have to say that John authored Revelation. If we think about it, Jesus revealed the truth contained in all the books of the Bible, not just Revelation. However, in his wisdom, he chose to inspire men and have them bear witness and author these writings. The subject is all about him, and so I suppose it is prudent that he not testify about himself. By the way, I hope you don't think John was arrogant in that first verse. I can imagine that if I put something like that at the top of something I would write, a lot of people would be accusing me of arrogance. :-) When we think about it, most of the twelve apostles were not authors. Do you think authors are overrated? 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
John wrote:
David, why in the world can you not simply say,
"I think this is wrong?" I don't understand why
you persist on couching the views of others,
views you disagree with, in complete opposition
to the biblical message.
I do not characterize all views as anathema. I characterized the viewpoint
that no man can ever be faithful to himself or others as anathema. I stand
by that characterization.
Furthermore, let us not lose sight of the fact that the viewpoint I
characterized as such was simply a hypothetical viewpoint. To my knowledge,
nobody on this list has ever claimed to believe such a viewopint.
I also hope you recognize that some views demand a strong stand (see Jesus
doing it in Mat. 23). Other views can be objected to with more palatable
terms.
John wrote:
It is arrogant ("I am definitely right and your views
are apostate") and once again, such comments have
NOTHING to do with continued discussion.
I'm sorry, John, that you seem unable to discuss an issue with someone who
vehemently disagrees with you. I do it all the time. It seems to me to be
much easier to discern truth between two parties discussing something for
which they both have strong convictions at opposite ends. Maybe I have been
watching the Fox news channel too much. :-)
What makes my viewpoint here not arrogant is that it is not my viewpoint.
It is God's viewpoint. I have absolutely no doubt about it. That's faith.
That's integrity. It is not arrogance. It might look like arrogance, but
it is not. On this point, I am right because God says I am right and my
viewpoint is not mine but God's.
Look at it this way. Suppose someone were to write that Jesus Christ never
existed but was invented by men desiring to create a new religion. If I
said that such a view was anathema, Anti-Christ, and a doctrine of demons,
would you think that I was arrogant?
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
John wrote: KD writes before Nathan points the finger and says, "Thou art the man" in Ps 7. I'm not sure this was written before Nathan did this, but for the sake of discussion, I will assume this to be true. If you have any evidence that it was, please share it. John wrote: He not only gives request to the Lord to judge him (David) on the basis of his own righteousness -- a man who is guilty of one of the most involved and degenerate of crimes, but makes it clear that if he were to sin against a friend (think Uriah) it is his request that he be stomped into the ground !!!Stupid. Stupid? See, here is my problem. You judge David, a man after God's own heart, as arrogant and now stupid. Who made you such a judge? David's psalm is in our Bible as part of God's Holy Word, preserved for all of mankind, and you call the message of this psalm stupid and arrogant! I realize that David does not think like modern theologians and ministers, but the testimony of God is that he was right in everything except the matter of Uriah. What you call arrogant and stupid I call integrity and boldness. I wish you were more like David in psalm 7. I wish everyone was like David in psalm 7 and psalm 51. John wrote: When, in fact , he offers evil to his friend, when, in fact, he digs a pit and falls into it -- what is his request and attitude then?It certainly is not STOMP ME INTO THE GROUND, is it (anyone)? Rather, we find him begging for mercy. The point is there in black and white. David says one thing in Ps 7 and something very different in Ps 51. I agree with you that the message is different because the circumstances are different. James 4 teaches us how to repent in the following passage: James 4:8-10 (8) Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. (9) Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. (10) Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. Are we always to be afflicated and mourn and weep? Are we always to be sad? Of course not. We are to turn happiness to sorrow when we sin and need to repent. But let us realize that this is TEMPORARY while we repent of our sin. We are not to be continually in a state of repentance. Even David said in Psalm 51, Psalms 51:12-13 (12) Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. (13) Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. John wrote: I do not see this [Job] as having any bearing on my comments, nor does it help me to understand the situation with KDavid. The connection is that a study of Job reveals a man who was very humbled by circumstances. His family and possessions taken, and sickness and boils overtake his body. His friends sit with him in his misery for seven days saying nothing, and then eventually they say words to the effect, "Job, surely you have sinned somewhere and you need to ask God's forgiveness!" This was a huge temptation to Job, to set aside his integrity and say, "Well, I don't know what I did, but surely I must have sinned somewhere for God to treat me this way." Instead, Job's response was more to the effect of, "I have not sinned... your words wound me! Go away and be quiet." God was angry with Job's friends for trying to get him to admit that he was a sinner and that God was a Just and Holy God. God was pleased with Job for maintaining his integrity. David's psalm 7 is a psalm of integrity like Job's intergrity in the face of his temptation to confess sin which he had never done. Please do not insult God's Word by calling it stupid and arrogant. John wrote: There is the promise and the reality. When we overcome sin, it is by the power of God. That is the fulfillment (in a sense) of the promise. But we can never say that we are without sin. That is a biblical concept and an absolute reality., as well. It sounds like you are saying that the promise only operates some of the time. I believe that God's promises are true and a reality all the time, as long as we believe it and walk in it. The time when God's promises fail is when we turn away from them. No man can say that he is without sin because every man has tasted sin, including Jesus Christ. Jesus was made to be sin for us. This does not mean that Jesus committed sin. It simply means that he experienced the temptation and effects of sin, being made a man like the rest of us. Those of us in Christ can have this same testimony as Jesus Christ. That is what it means to be *IN* Christ. Please do not confuse the idea of having sin (a noun) with the idea of committing sin. Any person who says he is in Christ and continues to sin is a liar. 1 John 3:5-10 (5) And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (6) Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: w
RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
Right you are, Izzy. It simply says don't boil a kid in its mother's milk. Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 09.29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands #195 and #196 are not correct translations of the Word, if I remember correctly. Isn't the commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk? How they ever came up with that meaning is beyond me. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- "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]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
How many times do we have to re-visit the same questions over and over? How about first reading ALL of Acts 10 regarding Peter's vision. The answer to your first question is in there, Judy. Kay -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2004 08.42To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:22:19 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Here's some that will be balked at. Kay jt: What then is the point of Peter's vision on the rooftop before he went to the house of Cornelius? And why are we instructed not to make these kinds of distinctions because all things are good and sanctified by prayer with thanksgiving? > 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher > and> non-kosher Lev. 11:2> 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher> and non-kosher Deut. 14:11> 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and> non-kosher Lev. 11:9> 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher > and> non-kosher Lev. 11:21> 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4> 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13> 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11> 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19> 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41> 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44> 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42> 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. > 11:43> 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual > slaughter> Deut. 14:21> 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28> 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. > 22:30> 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23> 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17> 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17> 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33> 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19> 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26> 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14> 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. > 23:14> 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. > 23:14> 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. > 19:23> 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9> 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15> 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38> > --> "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]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
#195 and #196 are not correct translations of the Word, if I remember correctly. Isn't the commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk? How they ever came up with that meaning is beyond me. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- "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] Can God's covenants be broken?
Huh? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 4:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken? My memory as to what? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 16:12 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken? Here, Lance. Does this revive your memory? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
Jeff wrote: I see one covenant. God's covenant with man, begun with Abraham, amended with Moses, Again amended with David. Jeremiah prophesied a renewal, as did Isaiah, etc. That renewal was accomplished through Yeshua. The "New Covenant" is not new, it is Renewed. On what basis are you confident that the "New Covenant" is a "Renewed Covenant" and not new? I recognize that this is an assumption made by Messianics and Nazarenes, but is this only an assumption on your part, or is there some argument that has convinced you that "Renewed" is the proper translation and understanding? Did you see my post about Romans 7 where Sha'ul speaks of it being adultery to be bound to both the Torah and to Christ at the same time? Romans 7:3-6 (3) So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. (4) Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. (5) For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. (6) But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow who had married another man to have a "renewed" marriage contract or a new one. Maybe you can answer this question for me, and perhaps you also can exegete the passage above (Rom. 7:3-6). Perhaps you have another translation you think is better. I have the Hebraic Roots Version by James Trimm and some other translations that I can consult too. Jeff wrote: Sorry David, but Cut and Paste Theology is perfected in the church and allows it's practitioners to distort almost any passage of scripture and make it say anything when it is removed from it's original context. Oh, come on Jeff, be a man. If you think that I have taken something out of context, say that. Don't make me infer it by saying that such theology is perfected in the church. If you think that I have yanked something out of context, say that and then explain the context. Make your case. Comments like this paragraph above are nothing but a smoke screen and say absolutely nothing. I have done no "Cut and Paste" theology. I argue as the apostles argued in New Testament times: It is written... You need to do a little more "It is written" style argument here. Nobody is going to just take your word for it on this matter. Jeff wrote: I do not accept that. Gen 17, see Acts 15. God's Holy Word, not mine! Put Acts 15 in the context of Hebrews who venerated the Torah. How can Acts 15 be true unless we understand covenants and recognize that we are talking about two covenants? I asked you previously to look at the Galatians 4 passage and tell me whether or not you accept that there are two covenants. You reply that you only see one covenant. Please, then, exegete the following passage: Galatians 4:19-31 (19) My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, (20) I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. (21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? (22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. (28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. What I see in this passage is Paul pointing us to two women: Hagar and Sarah. Sarah was the freewoman. Her slave was Hagar, whom she made to be Abraham's wife. Later, Abraham had to kick Hagar and her son out of his household. Paul argues that this historical event is an allegory that
Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
Yeah, Judy We agree. I am exicted about this. Love is genderless. I also believe that women should not teach unless there is no man that is qualified to do so. Deborah was made a judge because no man was qualified to fill that position. It was supposed to be a slap in the face for the men of that time. It was God's way of saying if you don't step up to the plate, I'll put someone else in who will. As for David's comments, I agree with some of them. I do believe that men have to be more manlike. In churches you do see pastors not preaching on a certain subject because a select few have decided what you can preach about and what you can't. I went to a church like that. God help anyone who dare make someone feel convicted about something. Let's just stick to the easy stuff and never grow to the next level of your faith. But I don't neccessarily agree that it is the women who are totally responsible for men not being more manlike. I am sure they have played a part in that process. Why did the men not stand up? Why did they give in to such a pressure that they allowed themselves to be backed into a corner? And could they have possibly be put in that corner by other men? Paul was a manly man and he speaks of love being gentle and kind, not jealous etc... in First Corinthians. If men to be more manlike than they need to start loving properly. Please do not take this as man bashing on my part. And I don't believe that all men suffer from the problem that you have discussed. Suzy --- Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Judy wrote: > Being 'easily offended" happens to both men and > women David and has > nothing to do with feminized conversations > and emasculated men. Do love and good manners have > to be genderized? > >From whence are the roots of such > a concept as this? > > If you were a man, you might understand this better. > To tell you the > truth, you are more a man than many men I have met, > so this puts you at a > disadvantage in considering this question. In > talking about this to you, > I feel kind of like someone making a point to an > Olympic female weight > lifter that women tend to be physically weaker than > men. If she is > stronger than most men, it might not make a whole > lot of sense to her. > > jt: This morning my car quit on the highway and so > did our cell phone; I > sure wasn't making like an Olympic female weight > lifter out there. It was > a long way back to the gas station so I prayed for a > good Samaritan and > the Lord sent one - a Ditch Witch man with a working > cell phone who said > he wouldn't like for his wife to be out there on the > highway... it's such > a blessing when God provides. > > Historically, our rules of manners have come from > women. We invariably > turn to the female sex for sensitivity about > politeness and manners. > Surely the phrase "Miss Manners" means a little more > than "Mr. Manners" > to you. > > jt: I look more to Jesus than to Miss Manners for > sensitivity and > empathy. He is the one who raised the status of the > women of his > generation by allowing Mary to sit at his feet and > learn which was > unheard of in Judaism - since He is our example for > life and godliness > why would gender be a big deal? > > The problem is that when women determine the rules > of etiquette in > dialogue, we get away from the kind of dialogue that > the apostles often > engaged in and also taught their disciples to > engage. The dialogue of men > were so heated, that Paul instructed Timothy: 1 > Timothy 2:11-12 (11) Let > the woman learn in silence with all subjection. (12) > But I suffer not a > woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, > but to be in > silence. > > jt: I don't understand the above instruction in the > same way David. My > understanding is that Timothy was pastoring in > Ephesus and they had a > problem there with a type gnosticism where the women > would receive all > the revelations and they would lead the men; this is > also why he makes > the point about the woman being deceived and being > saved through > childbirth. > > Isaiah also uses gender to describe something not > honoring to God. Isaiah > 3:12 (12) As for my people, children are their > oppressors, and women rule > over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause > thee to err, and > destroy the way of thy paths. > > jt: Yes it sounds like chaos when children become > oppressors and I don't > believe women are to rule either. > > If apostles and prophets make gender differences, > then so can we. > > jt: I don't deny that men and women are different > David; my point is that > love and good manners should be genderless, that is, > both men and women > who are 'in Christ' should be walking in them. > > What I see in our culture is that men have been > pushed to the back to be > quiet. Most churches are filled with more women > than men, and many > church youth groups have more women
Re: [TruthTalk]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:22:19 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Here's some that will be balked at. Kay jt: What then is the point of Peter's vision on the rooftop before he went to the house of Cornelius? And why are we instructed not to make these kinds of distinctions because all things are good and sanctified by prayer with thanksgiving? > 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher > and> non-kosher Lev. 11:2> 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher> and non-kosher Deut. 14:11> 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and> non-kosher Lev. 11:9> 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher > and> non-kosher Lev. 11:21> 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4> 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13> 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11> 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19> 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41> 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44> 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42> 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. > 11:43> 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual > slaughter> Deut. 14:21> 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28> 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. > 22:30> 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23> 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17> 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17> 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33> 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19> 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26> 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14> 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. > 23:14> 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. > 23:14> 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. > 19:23> 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9> 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15> 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38> > --> "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] Two Covenants
Please explain what it should be translated. Suzy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > myth (the translation is faulty) > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:11:46 -0500 Judy Taylor > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > asserts: > "These women are two covenants.. __ 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
Actually, Jesus is the author of the whole Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16- All scripture is God breathed... He just used man to write it down for other people. Suzy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 11/16/2004 1:01:11 PM Pacific > Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Come to think of it, Jesus was not an author. :-) > > > > > > Actyally, He is the author of the book of > Revelation, is He not? > > JD > __ 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] Swimming with Noah
Oops, I thought he was a young one. Come to find out he is only a year younger than me. And may be in the same position as I am in with young one's of his own. Too funny! Suzy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 11/16/2004 12:27:15 PM Pacific > Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I am going through the same frustration with my > little > > boy. > > > > Suzy > > > > > Me too -- only he is 29 !!! > > Father Smithson > __ 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] 204 - 238 of 613 Commands
204 To ritually slaughter an animal before eating it Deut. 12:21 205 Not to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day Lev. 22:28 206 To cover the blood (of a slaughtered beast or fowl) with earth Lev. 17:13 207 Not to take the mother bird from her children Deut. 22:6 208 To release the mother bird if she was taken from the nest Deut. 22:7 209 Not to swear falsely in God's Name Lev. 19:12 210 Not to take God's Name in vain Ex. 20:7 211 Not to deny possession of something entrusted to you Lev. 19:11 212 Not to swear in denial of a monetary claim Lev. 19:11 213 To swear in God's Name to confirm the truth when deemed necessary by court Deut. 10:20 214 To fulfill what was uttered and to do what was avowed Deut. 23:24 215 Not to break oaths or vows Num. 30:3 216 For oaths and vows annulled, there are the laws of annulling vows explicit in the Torah Num. 30:3 217 The Nazir must let his hair grow Num. 6:5 218 He must not cut his hair Num. 6:5 219 He must not drink wine, wine mixtures, or wine vinegar Num. 6:3 220 He must not eat fresh grapes Num. 6:3 221 He must not eat raisins Num. 6:3 222 He must not eat grape seeds Num. 6:4 223 He must not eat grape skins Num. 6:4 224 He must not be under the same roof as a corpse Num. 6:6 225 He must not come into contact with the dead Num. 6:7 226 He must shave after bringing sacrifices upon completion of his Nazirite period Num. 6:9 227 To estimate the value of people as determined by the Torah Lev. 27:2 228 To estimate the value of consecrated animals Lev. 27:12-13 229 To estimate the value of consecrated houses Lev. 27:14 230 To estimate the value of consecrated fields Lev. 27:16 231 Carry out the laws of interdicting possessions (cherem) Lev. 27:28 232 Not to sell the cherem Lev. 27:28 233 Not to redeem the cherem Lev. 27:28 234 Not to plant diverse seeds together Lev. 19:19 235 Not to plant grains or greens in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 236 Not to crossbreed animals Lev. 19:19 237 Not to work different animals together Deut. 22:10 238 Not to wear sha'atnez, a cloth woven of wool and linen Deut. 22:11 -- "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]176 - 203 of 613 Commands
Here's some that will be balked at. Kay 176 To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2 177 To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11 178 To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9 179 To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21 180 Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4 181 Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13 182 Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11 183 Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19 184 Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41 185 Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44 186 Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42 187 Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish Lev. 11:43 188 Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21 189 Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28 190 Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30 191 Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut 12:23 192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 193 Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17 194 Not to eat the sinew of the thigh Gen. 32:33 195 Not to eat meat and milk cooked together Ex. 23:19 196 Not to cook meat and milk together Ex. 34:26 197 Not to eat bread from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 198 Not to eat parched grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 199 Not to eat ripened grains from new grain before the Omer Lev. 23:14 200 Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years Lev. 19:23 201 Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard Deut. 22:9 202 Not to eat untithed fruits Lev. 22:15 203 Not to drink wine poured in service to idols Deut. 32:38 -- "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] Two Covenants
Thank you for this explanation It really helps in understanding your post. Suzy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > the Ap. Paul sanctioned one covenant in this > context, a reality for which > DavidM has no apparent feeling, hence his use of the > word 'are', below > > the concept the Ap Paul presents in Gal is that > 'these women represent > two covenants, one which is valid now, relative to > JC, one which is not'; > proof: cp., e.g., the locations of the two parallel > cities in question > and to which city he harkens or thinks of as home, > i.e. his (true) > 'mother'-land > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:04:27 -0500 "Jeff Powers" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > Mr.G? > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 20:33 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants > > > myth (the ff. concept is not true) > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:15:46 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > || > >Sha'ul specifically says, "these women are two > covenants." > __ 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]139 - 175 of 613 Commands
Susan Petersen wrote: If you read Isaiah 1 in total (which I did for content purposes) God is very upset with the evil that His people are practicing. Because of that evil, He does not accept their sacrifices and their feasts. They were not following the Lord in the way that he had commanded. You are right. We have broken the covenant. But if you look at Malachi God asks for us to return to Him. Verse 7- 10 "From the days of your fathers you have turned away from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me and I will return to you," says the Lord of hosts." But you say, 'How shall we return?'" Because we have returned to God by following the commands that he set up in the first place we are in covenant with Him again. It is a renewed covenant. I want you to know that I have read every single word you have written and I have put thought to my responses. Sometimes the arguments that you bring up are arguments that I have had to answer before. I do not just blow you off (my words). I am thankful that you are trying your best to help me see what you believe to be true. This is what I am trying to do as well. I know exactly what you are feeling when I "fail" to see your point. I feel the same thing. I am praying the same thing for you.. that you would have an open mind and that God would teach you in the future what you need to learn. What I think it comes down to is this. We all have to make an account for our words and actions and the lack thereof. I am responsible to live what I believe or I will be a hypocrite. Suzy == Thank you Suzy. Maybe someday.. Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
I'm not sure who you are because I don't think you have ever given your name. But, I would appreciate it if you would expound on your idea that these comments are a myth. A lot of times you write "myth." That does not help the reader see how it is a "myth" or "concept is not true." How is it a myth. Why is the concept not true. Please expound. Suzy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > myth (the ff. concept is not true) > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:15:46 -0500 "David Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > || > >Sha'ul specifically says, "these women are two > covenants." > __ 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]139 - 175 of 613 Commands
If you read Isaiah 1 in total (which I did for content purposes) God is very upset with the evil that His people are practicing. Because of that evil, He does not accept their sacrifices and their feasts. They were not following the Lord in the way that he had commanded. You are right. We have broken the covenant. But if you look at Malachi God asks for us to return to Him. Verse 7- 10 "From the days of your fathers you have turned away from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me and I will return to you," says the Lord of hosts." But you say, 'How shall we return?'" Because we have returned to God by following the commands that he set up in the first place we are in covenant with Him again. It is a renewed covenant. I want you to know that I have read every single word you have written and I have put thought to my responses. Sometimes the arguments that you bring up are arguments that I have had to answer before. I do not just blow you off (my words). I am thankful that you are trying your best to help me see what you believe to be true. This is what I am trying to do as well. I know exactly what you are feeling when I "fail" to see your point. I feel the same thing. I am praying the same thing for you.. that you would have an open mind and that God would teach you in the future what you need to learn. What I think it comes down to is this. We all have to make an account for our words and actions and the lack thereof. I am responsible to live what I believe or I will be a hypocrite. Suzy --- Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeff Powers wrote: > > > Suzy, > > it looks as though the light may have gotten a > little brighter! > > Terry, > > So you don't reject these, just reduce them to 2? > > Jeff > > > Something you need to understand guys. Terry is a > nobody. What I > accept or reject means squat. What God says is what > counts. He says > (Isaiah 1) That He is sick of feasts and sacrifices. > You cannot > therefore now please God with feasts or sacrifices. > The old covenant is > broken. A new covenant is in effect. He wants you > to love Him and > love others, sincerely, with a pure heart. That > will please Him. > Tithing will not. The blood of even a spotless > animal will not. > Growing hair all over your face will not. > > Judy touched on true worship when she tried to > explain that all the > moral law (man's responsibility to God and man's > relationship to man) is > covered by the two commands that Jesus gave to every > follower. It is > not surprising that much of the old covenant is > contained in the new > covenant, since both were initiated by the one true > God. The other > stuff, no longer pleasing to God, is obsolete, > deleted, kaput. Abraham > did not need it, Isaac did not need it, Terry > doesn't need it and you > don't need it. It was for a specific group of > people, for a specific > reason, for a specific time. > > Something tells me that you won't accept this as > truth, but I do wish > you would consider it with an open mind. If it > won't take, I will have > to assume that I am trying to teach what God has not > yet planned for you > to learn, and if I get ahead of God I am just > beating a dead horse, so I > will stop now. Feel free to respond as you see fit, > but please > entertain the possibility for a moment that you may > be reading truth > before you do. > Terry > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with > salt, that you may know how you ought to answer > every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, > send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you > will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who > wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be > subscribed. > __ 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
ï 'should not be taken personally' The word 'person' is of significance in understanding 'One God, three persons' . - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 18:12 Subject: [TruthTalk] Self-deception From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It seems to me that conversations have been feminized for decades now and many men simply do not realize it. They have been emasculated and do not know how to stand up for themselves and say what they believe. We have spent way too much time talking about how we talk instead of just discussing issues because some people around here are just too easily offended. jt: Being 'easily offended" happens to both men and women David and has nothing to do with feminized conversations and emasculated men. Do love and good manners have to be genderized? From whence are the roots of such a concept as this? These conversations should never be taken personally. Who cares if somebody on the list thinks you are a child of the devil? There are plenty of folks on this list and elsewhere in this world who hate me greatly. That will not stop me from pursuing Christ, from loving them and others, nor will I stop testifying to truth.
RE: [TruthTalk] Heavy Yoke Light Yoke
What Scripture shows you that legalism is defined in the way that you define it Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. To me, Galatians 5:4 is the cornerstone to understand Galatians. To assume anything else from Galatians is to cause Paul to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Where does Scripture teach that legalism is the yoke being talked about? Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? I hope this answers your questions, Dave Miller. -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
ï Two recommendations:'The Trinity & Subordinationism-The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (Kevin Giles) and, 'Worship, Community & The Triune God of Grace' (see chapter four 'Gender, sexuality and the Trinity). All the thinking (of believers) is to be subsumed under The Trinity. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 22:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Gender differences From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy wrote:Being 'easily offended" happens to both men and women David and has nothing to do with feminized conversationsand emasculated men. Do love and good manners have to be genderized? From whence are the roots of sucha concept as this? If you were a man, you might understand this better. To tell you the truth, you are more a man than many men I have met, so this puts you at a disadvantage in considering this question. In talking about this to you, I feel kind of like someone making a point to an Olympic female weight lifter that women tend to be physically weaker than men. If she is stronger than most men, it might not make a whole lot of sense to her. jt: This morning my car quit on the highway and so did our cell phone; I sure wasn't making like an Olympic female weight lifter out there. It was a long way back to the gas station so I prayed for a good Samaritan and the Lord sent one - a Ditch Witch man with a working cell phone who said he wouldn't like for his wife to be out there on the highway... it's such a blessing when God provides. Historically, our rules of manners have come from women. We invariably turn to the female sex for sensitivity about politeness and manners. Surely the phrase "Miss Manners" means a little more than "Mr. Manners" to you. jt: I look more to Jesus than to Miss Manners for sensitivity and empathy. He is the one who raised the status of the women of his generation by allowing Mary to sit at his feet and learn which was unheard of in Judaism - since He is our example for life and godliness why would gender be a big deal? The problem is that when women determine the rules of etiquette in dialogue, we get away from the kind of dialogue that the apostles often engaged in and also taught their disciples to engage. The dialogue of men were so heated, that Paul instructed Timothy: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (11) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. (12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. jt: I don't understand the above instruction in the same way David. My understanding is that Timothy was pastoring in Ephesus and they had a problem there with a type gnosticism where the women would receive all the revelations and they would lead the men; this is also why he makes the point about the woman being deceived and being saved through childbirth. Isaiah also uses gender to describe something not honoring to God. Isaiah 3:12 (12) As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. jt: Yes it sounds like chaos when children become oppressors and I don't believe women are to rule either. If apostles and prophets make gender differences, then so can we. jt: I don't deny that men and women are different David; my point is that love and good manners should be genderless, that is, both men and women who are 'in Christ' should be walking in them. What I see in our culture is that men have been pushed to the back to be quiet. Most churches are filled with more women than men, and many church youth groups have more women than men because men are not allowed to be men. Men are constantly rebuked for exercising their masculine qualities of vigor, integrity, courage, boldness, and ambition. Rather than directing their natural gifts in profitable ways, men are generally taught that such virtues are evil. If they stand up and rebuke evil, someone tells them to be quiet and stop being rude. If a man uses logic to dispel a false belief, he is told that he is losing many of his congregation (who happen to be women and children). The mouths of men who speak as men, reproving, rebuking, and exhorting, are constantly being stopped. jt: This is interesting David. I've never ever seen evil rebuked in Church circles and I've been in many of them. In fact most evangelical Churches that I've been a part of only allow men in leadership and the pastors have all been male. There are a lot of women in congregations which is a shame but I always thought it was because the men would not take their rightful place as spiritual leader in the home. This is a major reason that secularism has tak
Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
John Eldredge, like so many authors who've experienced success, has become a mini-industry. I personally prefer his first title 'The Sacred Romance' which he co-authored with Brent Curtis.However, all of his books appear helpful to many men (girlie or otherwise) and women. In my judgment, Willard is to be preferred over Eldredge. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 22:59 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Gender differences Its not a book for Girlie Men. My husband has a copy that he hasnt had a chance to read yet. It was highly recommended by a friend of his. (But hes such a wild man already.) J Izzy -Original Message-Maybe Lance can help us out here with a book he may have read called "Wild at Heart." I haven't had time to read it, but I have had many bring up this book when I have taught on gender differences and the need for men to be comfortable being masculine. Peace be with you. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
'I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt; the place of your slavery.' Exodus 20:2 PS:If you keep the first you keep 'em all. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 22:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands In a message dated 11/16/2004 12:47:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 are these indicatives of Grace Lancerefers to?Hi Judy -- Lnace is the author of the above. John Boy
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
jt: Oh but I am Gary; I am not seeking your counsel, just curious because I find nothing about you consistent other than the word "myth". BTW what is the ff concept ie (the ff. concept is not true)? why aren't you followg your advice to Jeff (Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:11:46 -0500)? On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:49:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jt: What do you mean the translation is faulty Gary? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken?
My memory as to what? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 16, 2004 16:12 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Can God's covenants be broken? Here, Lance. Does this revive your memory? Izzy -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:13 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 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. > > Peac
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
:) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 23:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants why aren't you followg your advice to Jeff (Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:11:46 -0500)? On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:49:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jt: What do you mean the translation is faulty Gary? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
In a message dated 11/15/2004 2:17:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We first started getting bogged down with terminology that you used which I found to be ambiguous (e.g., authoritative appeal, perfected by another, etc.). When I pointed out that you were wrong about no NT writer ever quoting Jesus, that was when you started getting truly offended and accusing me of implying that your original question was without merit. I tried to keep us on track by talking about the gospel and defining what it means because it is very related to the concepts going on in other thread about repentance, obedience, the law, etc. In the midst of this, there was the question of reconciling the love and hate verses. You accused me of implying a shallowness on your part because I asked you if you actually reconciled the two passages together, or if you thought one simply negated the other. It was an honest question on my part because I know that you have a Church of Christ background and members of the Church of Christ often have argued with me that NT passages trump out and negate OT passages. I try to ignore dealing with these misunderstandings between us as much as I can because they usually detract from meaningful dialogue. Right now, however, I desire that you have a little better opinion of me than you presently have. I think discussion can be more meaningful when there is an element of mutual trust and respect. My suggestion is to simply move on. There are a number of skewed "facts" in the above statement, but I will take your last two sentences at face value, express my appreciation for them, and wake up, in the morning, like a goose in a new world. Looking forward to continued and honest discussion. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Gender differences
In a message dated 11/16/2004 8:00:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I haven't had time to read it, but I have had many bring up this book when I have taught on gender differences and the need for men to be comfortable being masculine. psychobabble --- I know of one who is "uncomfortable being masculine" whatever that is supposed to mean. J
