[TruthTalk] evidence of BoM
Still waiting for the Addresses Blaine, did you forget? BLAINE: A good book o read is IN SEARCH OF CUMORAH, available at Deseret Book. It pretty much proves the validity of the BoM--very scholarly, however, do you read stuff like that, Kevin? (:>) I recently examined the finds at the Oriental Institute in Chicago I viewed a number of artifacts that collaborate the stories of the Assyrian people as spoken of in the Holy Bible. I even saw artifacts that proved the existance of a number of Kings of that nation and of the nation of Israel, who also are written in that Old Black Book (Sargon, Sennacherib) In fact I viewed Sennacherib's Prism which mentions King Hezekiah of Judah! It includes independent evidence (The Assyrian account) for the record in 2 Kings 19 6-7 "And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the LORD, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land." IS 37 33-38 "Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed..." http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html Awesome stuff! Undeniable proof that the Bible is Historically accurate. Knowing that you have an interest in Archaeology, Blaine, I was wondering if you can tell me where I might see some evidence for the Book O Mormon and it's accuracy. Please provide Museum name and Location. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] best advice
LIVE YOUR LIFE SO THAT WHEN YOU DIE, THE PREACHER WILL NOT HAVE TO TELL LIES AT YOUR FUNERAL. (:>) Blaine -- "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] Michael Rood
Hi Marlin!! Long time no see! You were on TT when I got off over a year ago. You bring up when Jesus was born--Tishri 1. There is a fly in the soup with Tishri 1, which is the assumption that Zacharias only filled the Priest's duty once a year. Actually he did it twice a year. This argues for EITHER Tishri 1, or sometime in the early Spring--probably the Passover. The symbolism all fits much better for that time of the year, when lambs are born. Glad to see you back. Blaine -- "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] Basis of Unity
BLAINE: Ha ha! We try, at least, huh Bill? DAVEH: Do you mean to say you found time to read all their posts!?!?!?! :-P Bill Taylor wrote: PS Hey DaveH: You are first on my list tomorrow. Sorry for the delay, as it was all I could do to keep up with Iz and Judy. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
I John in bold print - we will have to clean this up next time around, I think. n a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity. No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey. Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction? No, I'm saying both of them were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Where do you draw the line on this "image of God thing. He is not only pure, holy and unblemished, He is also all powerful, omnipresent, and most important to our discussion - not capable of sinning. Eve took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong voice. If Eve were in the image of God as according to you, she COULDN'T have "[taken] the bait." Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. Adam had a choice -- God does not. Adam and Eve justified what they were about to do; God is not capable of such activity. Not capable. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame of course not with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God ? "propensity" you say - then I must agree According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam" Sure He did --- and I have no problem admitting this because the act of human creation did not end on the day God made man. Man was created a free moral agent . something God is not. Your argument above is taken from the pages of the RCC and its teachings on original sin. Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - a very scriptural argument is coming in this post but you will ignore it and work to carry on this discussion without dealing with issues I bring up and why does it always turn personal (ad hominem) at some point? And what, pray tell, is ad hominem in my post to you? My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; Judy, you simply do not write without put downs. Does not happen. I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment. Do that, Judy. I always want scripture. God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. You have missed the point, entirely. I read the Genesis account, make note of what happened, in detail, immediately prior to the actual eating of the forbidden fruit, and draw my conclusions. About as scriptural as one can get. What we -- I guess I should say "I" -- what I see IN THE RECORD of Adam and Eve up until the time of the sin event is the character of two individuals AS THEY WERE CREATED. You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light." Capacity for sin and fallen nature are NOT the same John. Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is Christ (God's likeness). I don't know why you would not think of a day as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (or the first day
[TruthTalk] dangerous threat to your health!
Doctors and Guns Doctors: A. Number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. B. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000. C. Accidental deaths per physician is just over 17% - Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services. Now Guns: A. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, 80 Million.) B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .00188% - Statistics courtesy of F.B.I. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR! Please alert your friends to this alarming threat immediately. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand! (Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.) -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Eternal sweetness
Q: What is the only food that does not spoil? ...scroll down for the answer A: Honey Honey has been found in Egyptian Pharaohs tombs and when tasted was edible. Perhaps when you call your spouse "Honey," it means the love will never spoil. -- "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] Mormon Classification
BLAINE: Hmm, maybe you ought to print the version with NEPHI as the angel, Kevin, along with a source. I don't seem to find it in my book along with all the others. (: Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHI Is that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version? Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some revision & editing. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote: The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versions BLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2 volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret Book. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote > Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God ... And again later she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? jt responds: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that refers to Him as Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. Ah, yes, but does it mean as you stated, that Jesus was not here with us on earth as God? Does it mean that while he was here, he was not God with us, Emmanuel? __ jt: I didn't use the word "similarity" I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible says. Are you saying that you have never argued that the word "likeness" here means similar? And that you do not still believe it means this? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. :>) Please forgive me. Peace to you, Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] 1 more evangelical Liar
Kevin wrote: Hello; I am John I had my head cut off for the witness of Christ; I am Paul I was beaten & stoned I preached the whole known world; BLAINE: But Kev, these were righteous men engaged in a righteous cause--they died martyrs to that righteous cause, as did many other men who gave their lives for the truth. Regards the street preachers, however, just because a man has his ladder leaning against a wall, and even gets to the top, does not mean it was leaning against the right wall in the first place. I hope when you get to the top of your ladder, you are not disappointed with what you see on the other side. LOL "Not everyone who saith, "Lord, Lord," will enter into the kingdom of God." -- "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] LDS Church throws curves
BLAINE: Kevin, what do you expect? You SPs do the powerplay thing to the hilt!!! You play every card you can, and then some. Do you think the LDS Church should just roll over and play Mr. Nice Guy? First you guys criticize the Church for not using its strength to get involved in public issues--that came out last time I was on TT. Now, you complain when they do get involved. Which way do you want it? Rocky Anderson, by the way, is a former attorney for that oh-so-wonderful American organization called the Civil Liberties Union. Does that tell you anything? BLAINE: The LDS Church really throws the SPs a lot of curved balls, in this game, huh? LOL They just don't play fair at all, according to Kevin. No according to the mayor & many others it is a Theocracy not a democracy in Utah Rocky Anderson on the LDS Church: "It's the only organization, I think, that seems to automatically get its way among most elected officials." The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2551464 bills yanked after church speaks up Rocky ruffled: "Everyone knows that's the way it is" On Wednesday, Anderson held his last public forum on bridging the divide among Mormons and others and one theme was the alienation some non-Mormons feel when they believe Mormon values run the state. To heal, Anderson said it is "crucial" to move away public officials allowing the church to "control" public policy. Anderson adds that he would "like to see a council that's going to do the right things by the city rather than jump to the tune of whoever might call from the LDS Church." During Anderson's mayoral tenure, LDS leaders have weighed in on two high-profile policy debates: the Main Street Plaza furor and the fight over Nordstrom's downtown location. http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2556099 The percentage of active Mormons in the Legislature is far higher than that of the statewide population. perception of private agreements between the church and the so-called secular elective body has at times caused apoplexy among those who believe their voices are ignored because of the church-state relationship. two officials in the LDS Church's public relations department phoned two senators while they were on the floor and told them privately the church did not want the bill to pass. The session ended and the bill died without a vote. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600110544,00.html Anderson maintains there are some LDS council members who will never vote against the LDS Church's wishes. "I know some people are offended that I say this, but at the same time everybody knows it's true," he said. Such "blind" following of the LDS Church's wishes builds resentment in non-LDS residents, Anderson says, so he wants more religious diversity to lessen non-LDS disenchantment. "I was informed that it was basically dead on arrival after a council member spoke with a representative of the LDS Church," Anderson said. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:51:01 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy wrote > Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God ... And again later she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? Please allow yourself to consider what I've written pertaining to Philippians 2.5-11 (see below*). jt: Emmanuel means "God with us" but the same scripture that refers to Him as Emmanuel also calls Him Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. All true. But earlier Judy wrote > For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. No, Judy, that is not so. Moreover, you do not realize what you have done. In the same post you have denied both Jesus' divinity and his humanity. Jesus did not come in the similarity of a man; for I am aware that this is what you mean. No, the Son of God took upon himself the likeness of man in that he was also fully human. jt: I didn't use the word "similarity" I used the word "likeness" which is what the Bible says. To uphold the human nature of Jesus is not to say that his divine nature was anything less than wholly divine. Jesus was fully human and fully God, two natures in one person. jt: I don't believe I am saying what you think that I am saying Bill. What I object to is the idea that Jesus had a "fallen human nature" in the image of the first Adam which is what the rest of us who are born by means of procreation inherit along with the 'iniquities of the fathers' If I may, I would like to say, as it pertains to your comments about his humanity, that you are making the mistake that many, many Christians make today, in that you are attempting to make the human nature of Jesus something other than what it was -- completely human -- and this in order to uphold the integrity of his divinity (although as I consider your comments above I can only wonder why). But that is not necessary: jt: I don't know exactly what you mean by "completely human" Bill. I have no problem with Jesus being fully human on the same order as the first Adam before the fall along with a full measure of the Holy Spirit but He was not exactly like us. He received worship. the human nature of Jesus was not divine, and the divine nature of Jesus was not human; the humanity was human and the divinity was divine and the two came together to form an inseparable union in the one person of Jesus Christ. And because the two natures were not equal, in that his human nature was infinitely inferior to his divine, yet never once overwhelmed by it (cf Phil. 2.5-11 see below), the incarnational relationship between the two natures must always be considered asymmetrical. Being human, Jesus was frail in every manner commensurate to humanity, even in that he could sin and that he was fraught with the same proclivities as we; but being divine, he was able to overcome that frailty in every instance -- throughout his life gaining victory over that which from the time of the fall had held humanity in bondage. jt: I don't understand your thinking Bill because it is so theological but I do understand the person of Jesus and yes he had the same limitations we do because of his humanity and he overcame temptation in the wilderness by the Word of God which is honored by God the Father, not because He was divine (he layed that aside - remember?). His teaching was from the Father and the works were from the Father also. He said the Father is greater than I - Hence he was able to reverse that captivity, taking it captive and defeating it in himself -- finally and forever, once and for all. O but to recognize and embrace this truth is not to diminish the divine characteristics of our Lord; nor is it to make him less than or other than what he was; it is to worship Emmanuel, God with us, pure and holy, to exalt him and to glorify him for who he was: Mary's son, the Son of God -- for what he did, none other could do. Thank you, Jesus. Bill jt: I don't believe I am diminishing any of that Bill; but He could not have had a fallen human nature and be pure and holy ATST. My belief is that He took the form of man upon himself with it's human limitations, everything other than it's fallenness.
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
didn't Servetus hold his contrarian views without an anti-Calvinist bias? why was he, or, perhaps, on the basis of what 'world view' did he become a citizen of Geneva? On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:14:38 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: while someone says he's 'anti-Calvinist', partic for reasons behind the argument fragment below, what are the implications for his 'world view'? how does 'anti-Calvinism' impact biblical unity and/or tolerance? On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:35:27 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:|| >..don't burn someone at the stake like Calvin's Geneva
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
while someone says he's 'anti-Calvinist', partic for reasons behind the argument fragment below, what are the implications for his 'world view'? how does 'anti-Calvinism' impact biblical unity and/or tolerance? On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:35:27 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:|| >..don't burn someone at the stake like Calvin's Geneva
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Judy wrote > Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this earth as God ... And again later she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel suggest to you? Please allow yourself to consider what I've written pertaining to Philippians 2.5-11 (see below*). __ But earlier Judy wrote > For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. No, Judy, that is not so. Moreover, you do not realize what you have done. In the same post you have denied both Jesus' divinity and his humanity. Jesus did not come in the similarity of a man; for I am aware that this is what you mean. No, the Son of God took upon himself the likeness of man in that he was also fully human. To uphold the human nature of Jesus is not to say that his divine nature was anything less than wholly divine. Jesus was fully human and fully God, two natures in one person. If I may, I would like to say, as it pertains to your comments about his humanity, that you are making the mistake that many, many Christians make today, in that you are attempting to make the human nature of Jesus something other than what it was -- completely human -- and this in order to uphold the integrity of his divinity (although as I consider your comments above I can only wonder why). But that is not necessary: the human nature of Jesus was not divine, and the divine nature of Jesus was not human; the humanity was human and the divinity was divine and the two came together to form an inseparable union in the one person of Jesus Christ. And because the two natures were not equal, in that his human nature was infinitely inferior to his divine, yet never once overwhelmed by it (cf Phil. 2.5-11 see below), the incarnational relationship between the two natures must always be considered asymmetrical. Being human, Jesus was frail in every manner commensurate to humanity, even in that he could sin and that he was fraught with the same proclivities as we; but being divine, he was able to overcome that frailty in every instance -- throughout his life gaining victory over that which from the time of the fall had held humanity in bondage. Hence he was able to reverse that captivity, taking it captive and defeating it in himself -- finally and forever, once and for all. O but to recognize and embrace this truth is not to diminish the divine characteristics of our Lord; nor is it to make him less than or other than what he was; it is to worship Emmanuel, God with us, pure and holy, to exalt him and to glorify him for who he was: Mary's son, the Son of God -- for what he did, none other could do. Thank you, Jesus. Bill *In prayerful anticipation I would like to once again include a few words pertaining to Philippians 2.5-11: It was the servant heart of the Father which the Son came to reveal: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." That is the same servant heart which he shared with God throughout eternity. In becoming human Christ took upon himself the flesh of a servant, not because that revealed something other than the heart of God, but because it was humanity's servant class that best exemplified God's heart. Paul writes in verse 6 that the Son did not regard his equality with God something to be exploited. With this idea intact, we may now begin to grasp the meaning of kenosis (to empty; see v. 8). In becoming Emmanuel, the Son of God came to bear and disclose the heart of God, to the Jews first and then to all humanity (Joh 10.38). In all he did he came to show the world what God was really like. He did this not in overwhelming power and blinding glory, as the Jews expected -- and he was fully capable of demonstrating. No, his was not to overwhelm his creation, but to empty himself, becoming firstly a servant; for the heart of God is humble. Ours is the only God in the universe who stoops. Every other "God" demands that humans climb their way to meet him. Our God stoops to meet us, where we are. When he came to show us who he was, our God looked up to us from a position of servitude. Our God is a humble God. In this passage we see that the Son did not consider his equality with God something to be to be taken advantage of. This one who possessed divine equality with the Father, did not regard that status as something to be exploited; instead he interpreted his earthly status as a vocation to obedient humiliation and death. At any point along the way he could have grasped at, or taken advantage of, or exploited his glory, his power, his equality, the honor he deserved, but in so doing he would not have been demonstrating the heart of his Father: "He who has seen me has seen the Father.
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Kevin wrote: >> So you would tolerate someone disgracing >> your wifes name &reputation? John wrote: > you are not going to leap frog your failure at a > practical application of your position that unity > is based upon full agreement with biblical doctrine. > THAT is what we have been talking about. > Cough up the list, Kev or forever hold your peace. It seems to me that you guys are talking about two different things. John, aren't you creating a straw man argument here, trying to make Kevin argue that unity is based upon full agreement with Biblical doctrine, when really he is saying that when people insult God, we should not tolerate it? Kevin, do you believe that unity is based upon agreeing completely with Biblical doctrine? Personally, I believe that unity comes first and that doctrinal agreement is the fruit of that unity. Therefore, any call for a list of doctrines that would bring unity is faulty. 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] Unity & Judgement (was Basis of Unity)
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 09:27:26 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 2/5/2005 9:56:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:There is no strife or disunity in Christ and He is not divided JD: On the surface, this is untrue. jt: Had you ever considered that maybe what we see 'on the surface' is not the reality? No. There are reasons why surface impressions are what they are. The truth, in this case, is more involved than one might originally thinkbut the surface is reality. Not always and men are afflicted with their own fleshly bias. Proverbs says "It is nto good to have respect of persons in judgment. He that saith unto the wicked. Thou art righteous, him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him" (Prov 24:23) Surface reality is judging after the flesh and Jesus said to the Pharisees "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man and yet if I judge my judgment is true for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me." (John 8:15) Jesus is our example and the one we are to follow after. He is the one we are to emulate. Jesus says: "Judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24) God says the same thing to the prophet Samuel "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature because I have rejected him for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. (1 Sam 16:7) But, perhaps I do not know what you mean with the phrase "no stife or disunity in Christ." jt: It means just what it says - No it doesn't or I wouldn't have asked the question. the Church he is coming for will have no spot, wrinkle, or blemish; wouldn't you categorize strife and disunity as wrinkles and blemishes?. And here is where we part company -- I on the right and you on the left (I just love talking like you guys -- it gives me such a sense of power , anyway) I beleive that the unblemished Church is the redemptive work and consideration of God in Christ. You think it has to do with your efforts. I didn't say that did I? However it will never happen without our cooperation "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27) When can we say unity has occurred? jt: When we are of one heart and one mind. When we are all say the same thing and doing what He says. What is the situation with God and disciple(s) until that happens as in the case with you and I? Are they in Christ or what? jt: We should separate ourselves from some things (see Ephesians 5:3-6) because we were once darkness ourselves but now we are to walk as children of light and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them - all things are reproved as they are made manifest by the light. To answer your question. We are in Christ as we walk in the light as He is in the light. If we fall we go to the throne of grace, repent, get back up and continue on. When a division occurs and assuming one believer in definitely in Christ -- how does the onlooker tell the difference in the two opponents? jt: Eventually, as ppl grow into Christ and His love is perfected in their hearts a wolf will be exposed in spite of the sheepskin by what is coming out of his mouth. "grow into Christ" you say. So there is a time when the church is not united in lockstep teaching and doctrinal verbage. You do include "verbage," correct? jt: I've never included "lockstep" anything John - this is your term and to me it sounds like Hitler's army but then maybe that is how you want it to sound..
RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
LOL! Do I hear a “moo”? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 11:48 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior Did you miss it? What is so important about this list? Are you a LEGALIST need a bunch of rules? You act like your ready to gloat cause you think there is no such thing. Yet it exists, is right in front of your face but you can't see it. You won't follow the rules anyway why have a cow?
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Kevin wrote: > Are you familiar with the Doctrine of separation? Yes, but it probably is not the same as the doctrine of separation that you embrace. Kevin wrote: > Surely you must be David. I find that there is > a clear COMMAND for Christians to avoid > those that are in sin but also those that are in > darkness. There is a difference in how separation is practiced among believers and among those who are not believers. It seems to me that some of the Corinthians misunderstood the doctrine of separation in the same way that you misunderstand it. Consider the following passage where Paul clarifies how this separation is to be practiced: 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: (10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. (11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Therefore, we see here that a different attitude is taken toward a brother in Christ who continues in sin, and those in the world who have not yet believed upon Christ. There is a form of toleration that we ought to practice as we evangelize the world. Note also that the last time we discussed this on TruthTalk, you never were able to come up with a passage that shows that believers should excommunicate anyone for embracing a false doctrine. Excommunication appears to be a form of discipline for believers who continue to sin, but not a form of discipline for false teaching. False teachers are dealt with by correcting them, and if they fail to change their error, marking them. Kevin wrote: > ... God wants His people to be a Pure people on the > inward (sin vs holiness) & the outward. Even the > appearance of evil, He never once allowed His people > to associate with those outside of His Covenant Relationship. You need to rethink this. The Torah makes mention of strangers many times, and it often gives laws that allow certain things to be done with those outside of the Covenant versus those inside the Covenant (e.g., loaning with interest, slavery, etc.). I know that you are probably thinking of the command to kill everyone, but that is not the whole story. Now in the church, we should make sure that we fellowship only with those in the Covenant. That is what church is for. Therefore, there is a different level of separation going on in regards to the church than there is in a public forum like TruthTalk or a classroom at a public high school or college. Kevin wrote: > Is this optional? And have no fellowship with the > unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove > them. I consider "reproof" to be a form of tolerance when contrasted with burning people at the stake. Maybe we are talking about two different things when we speak of tolerance. Let me give you an example concerning sodomy. God's law says these homosexuals should be put to death. I reprove homosexuals, and when I do, they rant and rail and spit in my face and often physically attack me. I turn the other cheek and continue my reproof. I consider my actions to be tolerance in that if I were to follow the letter of God's law then I would kill them. Can you see how I practice tolerance towards homosexuality? I don't accept homosexuality as anything other than a crime, but because man's law now thinks otherwise, I practice tolerance as I testify against it. 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] Cult behavior
Kevin wrote: > Are you saying we are to be tolerant of false Doctrine? Yes, there is a form of tolerance toward false doctrine that should be practiced. This is because none of us is perfect in knowledge. This does not mean that when we encounter something false that we should just let it go on unchallenged. It means that we don't burn someone at the stake like Calvin's Geneva did because they didn't believe in the Trinity, or like Roman Catholicism did if someone did not believe in transubstantiation. Paul said that there must be heresies among us to show who is approved of God (1 Cor. 11:9). This does not mean that we welcome false doctrines, but it means that we practice a measure of tolerance as we offer true doctrines and expose the falsehood of the false doctrines. Kevin wrote: > Why did David say he hates every False Way? We too should hate every false way, but we can practice a form of tolerance and longsuffering toward these false ways. Kevin wrote: > Should we love wolves come into the Church to devour? No. 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] Cult behavior
John wrote: > Kevin is intolerant of all and everyone who > disagree's with him, including you, David Miller. > And that is why I find it funny that he was criticize > others for that very issue -- something you admit > is clearly a part of who he is. You fail to comprehend that Kevin is criticizing HYPOCRISY not intolerance. He criticizes those who holler real loud that everyone needs to be tolerant, but then they manifest the most intolerant behavior toward those who think differently from them. If they were intolerant and also said that intolerance was acceptable, I suppose Kevin would not have a problem with that. John wrote: > And they are homosexuals, not sodomites. Why? What's wrong with using Biblical terms? Deuteronomy 23:17 (17) There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 1 Kings 14:24 (24) And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. 1 Kings 15:11-12 (11) And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. (12) And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 1 Kings 22:45-46 (45) Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (46) And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land. 2 Kings 23:7 (7) And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove. 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] on Dialogue
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klinghoffer7feb07,0,6007871.story Use the Brain God Gave Us to Debate God By David Klinghoffer, David Klinghoffer is a columnist for the Jewish Foward Within religions, disputes also generate more noise than enlightenment. Protestant denominations are being torn apart by issues relating to the normalization of homosexual relationships, with emotional appeals too often taking the place of scriptural analysis.The alternative to the dumbing-down of religious disputes is not "dialogue," that namby-pamby, relativistic activity for academics and other religion professionals in which all sides are assumed to be somehow right. Rather, I propose reviving the ancient tradition of the religious disputation. First, the nation's exuberant religiosity would ensure that public religious debates would be entertainment, much more fun than "dialogue" with a panel of windbags. God gave us brains to read the religious texts we love. Debate challenges us to reexamine what we think we know. It opens paths for sharpening our minds, deepening our relationship with God. Let's exercise our brains about the subject that matters, to many of us, more than any other: God. Let's debate.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Church throws curves
In what is one of the worst problems that the State of Utah has a lawmaker has come uo with a law to provide a solution. All "Free speech Permits" have been recalled and replaced by Speech FREE Zones. No Oral Protest he says. "Illegal to EDUCATE" They will silence everybody just to gag us Another Church initiated law? Is it the goverments place to favor one religion over another? The Utah Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union believes the bill is too broad because it restricts protests of churches and medical facilities statewide in order to deal with one particular situation. http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=149590 It is similar to a 1993 Colorado law that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. That law makes it unlawful for any person within 100 feet of a health-care facility to knowingly approach a person within 8 feet with the purpose of passing a leaflet, displaying a sign or engaging in "sidewalk counseling." Protesters must stay 100 feet away from the facilities' entrances. The bill would make it a class B misdemeanor for street preachers to knowingly come within eight feet of another person to obstruct, detain, hinder, impede or block anyone entering a place of worship or health care facility. This includes distributing handbills or leaflets and displaying a sign or object. It will also be illegal to educate or counsel another person or engage in oral protest. Muzzles and gags will be handed out Free of charge to all arrivals at Salt Lake International Airport "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote:This plastic cone in Utah is called an "amplified device" so it falls under local OrdinancesSLC is also the only place I know of this side of the Iron curtain that actually has a "Free Speech Permit" you can apply for at City HallSince everyone knows the LDS Church has great Authority over the Government, & makes back room deals with the Goverment of SLC & the State it has been called the ZION Curtain.BLAINE: The LDS Church really throws the SPs a lot of curved balls, in this game, huh? LOL They just don't play fair at all, according to Kevin. --"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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Did you miss it? What is so important about this list? Are you a LEGALIST need a bunch of rules? You act like your ready to gloat cause you think there is no such thing. Yet it exists, is right in front of your face but you can't see it. You won't follow the rules anyway why have a cow? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/10/2005 5:30:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wev are talking about Your Toleeration not the criminal actSo you would tolerate someone disgracing your wifes name &reputation?Like I said before -- you are not going to leap frog your failure at a practical application of your position that unity is based upon full agreement with biblical doctrine. THAT is what we have been talking about. Cough up the list, Kev or forever hold your peace. JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:36:14 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 2/10/2005 5:30:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking about Your Toleration not the criminal act So you would tolerate someone disgracing your wifes name &reputation?JD: Like I said before -- you are not going to leap frog your failure at a practical application of your position that unity is based upon full agreement with biblical doctrine. THAT is what we have been talking about. Cough up the list, Kev or forever hold your peace. JD Mind if I add my two cents.. I don't see unity as based on a list of theologically acceptable Bible doctrines either, this is legalism and ritual. God desires truth in the inward parts; we need to take God's Word to heart and do what He says; there is a unity in "obedience to the truth" even among those who are at different places in it. Here's some food for thought I came across yesterday: Architects paint over their mistakes Doctors bury their mistakes under the sod Theologians cover up their mistakes with ritual JT
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction? No, I'm saying both of them were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Eve took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong voice. Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God? According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam"Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - and why does it always turn personal (ad hominem) at some point? My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment. God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light." Capacity for sin and fallen nature are NOT the same John. Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is Christ (God's likeness). I don't know why you would not think of a day as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (or the first day). How could it be more clear? More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was completed on the same "day" it was presented. A careful reading of the text will varify this. You are being "too careful" John because God can use any timeframe he wants to and none of us were there were we? No it wouldn't take God the Word 24hrs to make a statement. However you don't know how long it took God the Spirit to bring it to pass do you? We can only know what has been revealed, the secret things belong to the Lord. So why is the creation of Adam any different. I believe in the "fall." I do not believe in a fallen nature. Adam was always going to sin. Christ was always going to come to his rescue. And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen, appointed to happen, provided for in the creation of Adam before the worlds were. Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism. I don't see a whole lot of difference. You are in effect making God responsible for the fall and saying it was appointed and predestined all along. No wonder you are so hung up on this eternal sonship doctrine. When we say, "God is not finished with me yet," we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve. This is heresy John. Adam and Eve were complete; they were innocent and pure, naked and unashamed. They fellowshipped with God in the cool of the day and needed absolutely nothing; their job was to be good stewards over what God had already given them. The saying "Be patient with me
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/10/2005 5:30:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wev are talking about Your Toleeration not the criminal act So you would tolerate someone disgracing your wifes name &reputation? Like I said before -- you are not going to leap frog your failure at a practical application of your position that unity is based upon full agreement with biblical doctrine. THAT is what we have been talking about. Cough up the list, Kev or forever hold your peace. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Wev are talking about Your Toleeration not the criminal act So you would tolerate someone disgracing your wifes name & reputation?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/10/2005 4:30:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are discussing ToleranceWould you tolerate either scenario?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:36:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would a christian Gentle"man" like you stand by as another man claimed that your wife had multiple husbands? Would you allow him to defame her name fconstantly? Would you dialog?Mormons claim Christ had multiple wives thats OK with you mums the word.Stand by while as a thug broke into your home in the middle of the night while your family slept? Would you dialog with him? I am sorry, Kevin. I thought we were "discussing" the exchange of ideas as they relate to fellowship and tolerance. I seem to remember the name "Dr. Mouw." There was some claim to unity based upon unanimous solidarity in the realm of doctrinal preferences. When one speaks of "campbellite," it is then revealed that he is either mean or green. That was a part of the "discussion." And then, suddenly, someone is compromising my wife and standing about in my house in the middle of the night. Have you ever seen a really fat man wearing nothing but his favorite speedo chasing another man from his house late at night. It is truly a scary sight, or so I am told. That sign on my front door, "Fat man with speedo awaits your presense inside" pretty much insures my house as a criminally free zone. So, shall we engage in discussion? This is a discussion group. You seem offended by that fact. Curious. John I see no comparison to a criminal act and the ministry constraints of Dr. Mouw. JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] 1 more evangelical Liar
Why are there so many liars in this group? They have no compunction against lying. Not one ever came by to discuss their problem with our "behavior" Not one ever came by to witness our behavoir before they went to the press with their story, to get in the limelight what a springboard. Bearing false witness is a tool of the trade with ST Now if they were such gentlemen they would have headed the command of scripture to right their brother, they went to the world and slighted their brother if they really are brethren & not LDS plants. Mr Johson during an interview said "we LDS" oops. No one stomps & spits on garments. He is a Bald face Liar, seems like most of the leaders of the Bridges movement are afflicted with this Malady. In order to advance their cause any methodology is acceptable The ends justify the means What a wonderful witness these guys show up shake hands & go home thinking they did a wonderful witness for Christ. Punch their ticket to hell. "Welcome have a nice day" So when we ALL get to heaven I can see it now Hello; I am John I had my head cut off for the witness of Christ; I am Paul I was beaten & stoned I preached the whole known world; I am John missionary to a cannibal island, I had to sleep on the graves of 2 of my children and my wife so they would not be dug up & eaten; Hello I am chocolate christian I shook hands & I had a puppet ministry! Gee whiz mr McHenry maybe you are being critized by ministers & christians in Utah because you are in need of criticizing. naw could not be that. Charity does not mean ignoring the plight of these LDS folks & Charity does not mean Lying either. http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/54288 Standing Together, an Evangelical ministry devoted to sharing Christs love, has made a significant effort during the last two general conferences to stand outside and respectfully greet members of the LDS Church and welcome them to conference, said Eric Ryan McHenry, ministry associate for Standing Together. We felt that the actions of the street preachers has not reflected the greater heart [of the Evangelical community], McHenry said. He said some of these actions, such as rudeness, name-calling and stomping and spitting on temple garments do not reflect Christs love in any way. He also referred to 1 Corinthians 13:1 in describing the futility of these peoples efforts. The thing weve been criticized for is criticizing other Christians to make ourselves look good, McHenry said. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/10/2005 4:30:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are discussing Tolerance Would you tolerate either scenario? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:36:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would a christian Gentle"man" like you stand by as another man claimed that your wife had multiple husbands? Would you allow him to defame her name fconstantly? Would you dialog? Mormons claim Christ had multiple wives thats OK with you mums the word. Stand by while as a thug broke into your home in the middle of the night while your family slept? Would you dialog with him? I am sorry, Kevin. I thought we were "discussing" the exchange of ideas as they relate to fellowship and tolerance. I seem to remember the name "Dr. Mouw." There was some claim to unity based upon unanimous solidarity in the realm of doctrinal preferences. When one speaks of "campbellite," it is then revealed that he is either mean or green. That was a part of the "discussion." And then, suddenly, someone is compromising my wife and standing about in my house in the middle of the night. Have you ever seen a really fat man wearing nothing but his favorite speedo chasing another man from his house late at night. It is truly a scary sight, or so I am told. That sign on my front door, "Fat man with speedo awaits your presense inside" pretty much insures my house as a criminally free zone. So, shall we engage in discussion? This is a discussion group. You seem offended by that fact. Curious. John I see no comparison to a criminal act and the ministry constraints of Dr. Mouw. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/10/2005 3:48:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what was that list of doctrines you are in full agreement with in others? On a practical level, your thesis has been proven to be untenable -- proving that everyone is someone elses false prophet and everyone's doctrinal reservoir is someone (read" "everyone") else's poisonous pond. The ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM in terms of fellowship is to be found in the Light of God's presense (I Jo 1:7). Kevin's response to the above statement: So we can never know what is right or wrong? John responds: Kevin -- your failure to present the agreed upon list (a list of necessary biblical doctrines with which you are in full agreement with others) is a big deal to me. It means that on a practical level, you cannot comply with your own theology. You want to leap frog that failure and continue the "discussion." Ain't going to happen with me. Give me your list and you will have earned the right to proceed. Until you can prove a certain practicality to your message, I must assume your theology to be one of fancy. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:42:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin: Reconciled, Just like the Moabites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites &others before them! Got any for neighbors? God Reconciled them right off the map. John: Yeah, and those dirty old Ninevites -- they repented but did not convert. And that dirty old man, Noah drunk and sleepin with his own daughters, and the whoring Samson, and the confused Peter, fight one day and retreat the next, and those cowardly apostles, unwilling to attend either the trial or the cross, that Gentile who lives without knowledge of the law, or the vegetarian who disagrees with Paul's clear teachings on the subject of meats, and those carnal babes in Christ -- still of the flesh but saved. I could go on. The point being this: in scripture we see judgment and grace. With Kevin, only judgment .. at least as far as your involvement with TT is concerned. This is not good, Kevin. JD It's grace to hear about God's judgment and to be warned. Kevin is faithful whereas some are so loving and so nice and so tolerant in their carnality and fear of man that they leave people in their darkness and ignorance. For those ppl that day will come upon them unawares. JT Nothing here to respond to. You attack the messenger, not the message. Not a good "discussion group" tactic.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.
No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs.
Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.
Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction?
He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same.
According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good"
He did not create a "fallen Adam"
Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions. And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin. You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light." More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was completed on the same "day" it was presented. A careful reading of the text will varify this. So why is the creation of Adam any different. I believe in the "fall." I do not believe in a fallen nature. Adam was always going to sin. Christ was always going to come to his rescue. And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen, appointed to happen, provided for in the creation of Adam before the worlds were. When we say, "God is not finished with me yet," we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve. At the moment of their creation, they were in need of the resurrected Christ. The creation event, for man, is not completed outside the reception of the Christ, His ministry of reconcilition and the spirtual process we know as "growth" resulting in a spiritual home with God in Christ. The "fall" makes this conclusion irresistable. But the "fall" did not mark the beginning of a different kind of existence for Adam, himself. Look at the record of the fall. See there in its pages, the very same processes we, you and I, go through before a sin event. We have the association with evil influences, an intellectual openness to the consideration of sin, the act of justification, the sharing of evil opinion with others, the denial of the truth of God ("you will surely die"), the reaching out for sin, the act of taking into your possession the very opportunity for sin (plucking the fruit from the tree) all before the actual sin event. How is all this possible if they did not have the same capacity for sin, the same human nature, as we?
Remember -- without propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop. JD
There can be whatever God says there can be and Adam sinned by choice without
any propensity. Jesus OTOH refused to sin aside from any propensity. JT
Now, you know that Jesus was "tempted." God is not temptable. What is the difference between Jesus and God? His flesh. He became like us in every respect. The fact is this: Christ could have sinned and chose to do otherwise, condemning all those who say, "I am flesh, I have no choice." When it comes to sin, it is not that we can or cannot sin; rather, it is that we will or will not. I do not sin because I have to. I sin because I want to. An ugly fact that condemns us all.
God has not propensity for sin, and, consequently will never sin. He cannot sin.
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
We are discussing Tolerance Would you tolerate either scenario?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:36:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would a christian Gentle"man" like you stand by as another man claimed that your wife had multiple husbands? Would you allow him to defame her name fconstantly? Would you dialog?Mormons claim Christ had multiple wives thats OK with you mums the word. Stand by while as a thug broke into your home in the middle of the night while your family slept? Would you dialog with him? I am sorry, Kevin. I thought we were "discussing" the exchange of ideas as they relate to fellowship and tolerance. I seem to remember the name "Dr. Mouw." There was some claim to unity based upon unanimous solidarity in the realm of doctrinal preferences. When one speaks of "campbellite," it is then revealed that he is either mean or green. That was a part of the "discussion." And then, suddenly, someone is compromising my wife and standing about in my house in the middle of the night. Have you ever seen a really fat man wearing nothing but his favorite speedo chasing another man from his house late at night. It is truly a scary sight, or so I am told. That sign on my front door, "Fat man with speedo awaits your presense inside" pretty much insures my house as a criminally free zone. So, shall we engage in discussion? This is a discussion group. You seem offended by that fact. Curious. John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
Before I can agree to what is cleared up DUH[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2005 8:09:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: am sure that is not how you meant it so please be a little clearer. I may be able to accomodate you, but I will have to wait for clarification.Or what?JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
And with John just grace no discernment or judgement[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:25:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JOHN If and when the Mormons let down their guard, so to speak -- the moment they become open to meaningful dialogue, that is the time when God will work His will on all parties involved in the dialogue. it may take 20 years or 100 -- but it will happen. God is always working His ministry of reconciliation Reconciled, Just like the Moabites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites &others before them!Got any for neighbors? God Reconciled them right off the map.Yeah, and those dirty old Ninevites -- they repented but did not convert. And that dirty old man, Noah drunk and sleepin with his own daughters, and the whoring Samson, and the confused Peter, fight one day and retreat the next, and those cowardly apostles, unwilling to attend either the trial or the cross, that Gentile who lives without knowledge of the law, or the vegetarian who disagrees with Paul's clear teachings on the subject of meats, and those carnal babes in Christ -- still of the flesh but saved. I could go on. The point being this: in scripture we see judgment and grace. With Kevin, only judgment .. at least as far as your involvement with TT is concerned. This is not good, Kevin. JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
My eyes are "close" to what?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:30:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry Bill I see now that John wrote the portion I was responding to.Apparently your eyes completely close when you write or speak. Got to work on that. Sooner or later, you could walk off the deep end. JD Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! Try it today!
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
You ENJOY strife & Vitriol[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when> they read this statement from the master of> bullhorn evangelism? (This is cool -- I don't even have to come up with a new theme. It's ditto all over again. I would not mind having a civil conversation with you, Kevin. But I do have an intolerance for intolerance. I think such is evidence of one who has not the spirit of Christ. Hopefully that does not include you. but I see no love for the brethren in anything you write. Maybe its under the pickle, huh? John In a message dated 2/9/2005 3:09:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ps 59:12 For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their prideThe fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.Actually the real point is the Hypocrisy of those that call for tolerance; then not being tolerant. As I do not call for Tolerance I do not fit that category like some of you on TT.For instance where is your Tolerance for those on TT that commit all manner of vitriolic speech, you mock smear and then gossip when they get offline?You criticize the behavior you youselves practice more than any others on TT.That is called Hypocrisy, can't stand the "miller four" and SPEAK up about that but have no problem with mixing with False Teachers maybe cause that is your crowd. You are the educated ones who look down on the poor knaves of TT If they were only are smart as you which is may I add debatable. You are as the Bible says, Heady Highminded, prideful, arrogant and haughty. You like to consider yourself smooth gentlemanly Christians but when you get your toes stepped on they we see your true colors. Your froward mouths caught in sin can not ceasefrom berating &belittling long after those you slam have left TT or dropped the issue. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. This is what I observe from your behavior. There is no redeeming value thereof to your constant attacks. I am only left with the fact that your heart must be dark from the things that flow thru your mouth.A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. When you guys get your hearts regenerated then maybe you will play like nice boys. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.Did I hear you say you came out of the cambellite cult?David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote:>>Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE>>are the most Intolerant people.John wrote:>Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when>they read this statement from the master of>bullhorn evangelism?Sorry, but I didn't smile. Kevin is right. Kevin is very consistent in that he teaches we should be intolerant. That is why he gives the Mormons a hard time. Yet, Kevin is not as intolerant as the sodomites who preach tolerance, but then they commit all manner of intolerance, hatred and violence when someone opposes their agenda.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.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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Classification
Why was there NO account UNTIL 1832 and it did not even have 2 personages in it just an Angel NEPHI Is that added information or something to be removed in a LATER version? Technically not a contradiction just a small problem that can be excised by some revision & editing."[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote:The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different versionsBLAINE: I am fully aware of the different versions. No contradictions, however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have retold what they recall from Joseph telling them. They are all written in a 2 volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret Book.--"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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Church throws curves
BLAINE: The LDS Church really throws the SPs a lot of curved balls, in this game, huh? LOL They just don't play fair at all, according to Kevin. No according to the mayor & many others it is a Theocracy not a democracy in Utah Rocky Anderson on the LDS Church: "It's the only organization, I think, that seems to automatically get its way among most elected officials." The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2551464 bills yanked after church speaks up Rocky ruffled: "Everyone knows that's the way it is" On Wednesday, Anderson held his last public forum on bridging the divide among Mormons and others and one theme was the alienation some non-Mormons feel when they believe Mormon values run the state. To heal, Anderson said it is "crucial" to move away public officials allowing the church to "control" public policy. Anderson adds that he would "like to see a council that's going to do the right things by the city rather than jump to the tune of whoever might call from the LDS Church." During Anderson's mayoral tenure, LDS leaders have weighed in on two high-profile policy debates: the Main Street Plaza furor and the fight over Nordstrom's downtown location.http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2556099 The percentage of active Mormons in the Legislature is far higher than that of the statewide population. perception of private agreements between the church and the so-called secular elective body has at times caused apoplexy among those who believe their voices are ignored because of the church-state relationship. two officials in the LDS Church's public relations department phoned two senators while they were on the floor and told them privately the church did not want the bill to pass. The session ended and the bill died without a vote.http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600110544,00.htmlAnderson maintains there are some LDS council members who will never vote against the LDS Church's wishes. "I know some people are offended that I say this, but at the same time everybody knows it's true," he said. Such "blind" following of the LDS Church's wishes builds resentment in non-LDS residents, Anderson says, so he wants more religious diversity to lessen non-LDS disenchantment. "I was informed that it was basically dead on arrival after a council member spoke with a representative of the LDS Church," Anderson said."[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote:This plastic cone in Utah is called an "amplified device" so it falls under local OrdinancesSLC is also the only place I know of this side of the Iron curtain that actually has a "Free Speech Permit" you can apply for at City HallSince everyone knows the LDS Church has great Authority over the Government, & makes back room deals with the Goverment of SLC & the State it has been called the ZION Curtain.BLAINE: The LDS Church really throws the SPs a lot of curved balls, in this game, huh? LOL They just don't play fair at all, according to Kevin. --"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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
So we can never know what is right or wrong? How did david figure it out? Thy word is a lamp? The disunity is exactly because people do not go to The Standard. For instance your Standard is the Greek Anothers std is their inner witness Anothers is their Teacher or preacher Anothers is their church Who is right? How do we walk in the light? 1 JN 1:7 How can we know? Simple God gave us a perfect Living Book which not only can give us eternal life because it is a everlasting book but it can guide us into truth. Your spirit guide can not do that Why should I trust the Philosophy of a fallible man when I have the perfecr WORD of God? We have a more sure word We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. PS 44 send out thy light and thy truth JN 17 Thy word is TRUTH Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GodAnd the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. The light of the righteous rejoiceth: but the lamp of the wicked shall be put out.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/9/2005 12:25:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying we are to be tolerant of false Doctrine?Why did David say he hates every False Way?Should we love wolves come into the Church to devour?And what was that list of doctrines you are in full agreement with in others? On a practical level, your thesis has been proven to be untenable -- proving that everyone is someone elses false prophet and everyone's doctrinal reservoir is someone (read" "everyone") else's poisonous pond. The ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM in terms of fellowship is to be found in the Light of God's presense (I Jo 1:7).JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Saints & Adam God
BLAINE says who the Saints are that will be given judgement Christians & OT saints David called OT Jewish believers saints Ps 31:23 O love the LORD, all ye his saints: for the LORD preserveth the faithful PS 148 all his saints; even of the children of Israel saints on earth Ps 16:3 But to the saints that are in the earth Ressurection of OT saints from captivity (Abrahams Bosom) at Christs ressurection the First fruits Mt 27 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, NT Christians Acts 9:32 Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. Rm 1:27 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Lest you think it was the Church of Jesus Christ LDS at Rome 1 Co 1:22 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth Who was Adam? The Ancient of days and as Brigham put it "Adam, our Father and God." Here are scans of documents http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-adam-god.html You should have been at this GC! A Sermon Delivered By President Brigham Young, In The Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852. Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 reprinted in The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star on November 26, 1853 (vol.15, pp.769-70). Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. Treasure up these things in your hearts. December 10, 1853, "Adam, the Father and God of the Human Family" Millennial Star. In volume 17, page 195: "...every Knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is the God of the whole earth. Then will the words of the Prophet Brigham, when speaking of Adam, be fully realized--'He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.' " Brigham Young Deseret News, June 18, 1873 How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our Father and God Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, ... he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp197deseretnews.gif Heber C. Kimball, "there is but one God that pertains to this people, and he is the God that pertains to this earth--the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world ..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.1). Woodruff Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone ... God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know ... I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this (Millennial Star, vol. 57, pp.355-56). "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine: Kevin, who are the Saints that are to possess the Kingdom? You are adamant that they can't be the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so who are they? It is one thing to negate Joseph Smith, the Latter-day Saints,
