[TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Can't remember whether or not I've posted this; they are tidbits from a friend who corresponds with our daughter. He has alwayslived in SLC, has been looking for a life partner andis not a Mormon. This guywas raised in the Christian Science sect and apparently he does not find the "street preachers" offensive (Note: the was preparation is for the 2004 GC) ___ And speaking of goofy, I have three amusing tidbits from the local culture to share with you:First, in the polygamist communities, the female-to-male ratio has been really bothering me. I know how hard it is to find a female in a big city, and I couldn't imagine how each guy could find 7 or 8 in a small closed community. There is no way there would be near enough girls to go around, and I wondered how they did it. But I just found out! Periodically they expell a bunch of guys from the community with no explanation. (If a guy has ever done anything to make the leader mad, or question authority, or if he has more desirable women or posessions, he's history. He'll get kicked out.) About 30 guys were just kicked out of one of our local polygamist towns recently, including the chief of police, and other prominent members. When these men are kicked out, all of their wives, children, and posessions are then re-distributed to men that remain in the community. The banished men are forced to leave town with nothing, and are never allowed to come back.The second amusing tidbit is in preparation for the mormon "general conference" that is going on this weekend. (Twice a year, they cancel church on Sunday, and hold 2 big day-long meetings full of speeches from their leaders on Saturday and Sunday, to which mormons from all over flock to Salt Lake to attend). Each time they do this, "street preachers"(non-mormon preachers that want to expose mormons to truth) gather around temple square with signs and shirts that say horrible things like "Read the Bible". Last conference, two of these street preachers were beaten up by angry mormon conference attendees, who stole their signs and some of their belongings. (One preacher was holding up a pair of mormon garments, and I guess that really set off the mormons). Well, to avoid similar violent clashes, the city this year has designated several small "free speech" zones off away from temple square where it will be legal for the street preachers to exercise their freedom of speech, but on all the public sidewalks around temple square it will be illegal for any of themto gather. They just announced the new laws, so there was only time for one lawsuit from the street preachers claiming that the law is unconstitutional and violates their civil rights, but a mormon judge upheld the new ordinance last night, and there is no time for appeals to go higher (where the state and US constitutions would have to be upheld). And, incidentally, mormons are immune from the new ordinance, and they can still send missionaries on any sidewalk and even up to your door to push their beliefs, and they do not have to stay within the little free speech zones. Amazing how that works, isn't it?The third, and most amusing item to me is about the latest mormon film. I've mentioned to you how big of a push there is lately for these mormon films. Well, the latest one that they just finished making just received an "R" rating. That is extremely amusing because mormons are not supposed to see "R"-rated movies. (They went through some appeal process, and somehow got it reduced to a "PG-13" rating, which makes everything OK, and mormons can go see their movie now.)
Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
OH NO your self image cropped up again Attempted manipulation of feelings can not pass for an answer. Stop yer yellin screamin The Prerequisite for christian UNITY is Membership 2 CO 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be IN the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/12/2005 7:33:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First off I am not a Church of Christ CultistActually, I see very little difference between your cultish behavior and that of the C of C -- southern division. Unity is not arrived at by Cult or Evangelical consensus! Great -- I agree. So how is its arrival varified? Now be careful , here. You are getting a second chance from the Smithmeister. If you answer correctly, the Meister will not have to resort to the "list attack." We all know how impotent your defense was the first time around. What is the basis for Christian fellowship? As far as a list like I said very simple learned it in Sunday school ( I can have my Sunday chool teacher come over to help you.)The B I B L E now thats the list for me, I stand alone on the word of God the B I B L E ! Of course you won't accept this, you want me to tell you which particular vitamins are important. They are ALL important. Gods book is not pick choose You need all of it. The readers Digest version won't do NASB won't do the scholars have excised whole verses out of it. A diet without all the building blocks leaves one sick! Are you writing this or are you just wondering around in your room talking to yourself? Jesus Loves me this I know for the BIBLE tells me so! Throughly furnished with God's word! Do not need a "scholarly" brain drain. Well, you have certainly proven this point -- and a fine testimony to anti-intellectualism you are. I mean, after listening to you for, h, a couple of minutes, one not only sees little value in Continuation Schooling, one sees little point is bullhorn discussions. We have a Continuation School over by the High School. They make things so complex, but then again if we want to really know what partake means they can tell us. So profound partake means partake. You know, Kev, when I was growing up, nearly all my Sunday School teachers were like you. I would ask, "What does [such and such passage mean]?" and they would say, "It speaks for itself." The reason why they did this -- I found out after becoming a [real] man -- was THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE PASSAGE MEANT. You have come back to this discussion group, but not to discuss -- only to yell and scream your admittedly uneducated tripe and hope that you "save" someone. Your plan is right on schedule. We all feel closer to the Lord because of your efforts. Do I hear a group "amen?" 1 Co 1 :10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Easy to quote scripture, isn't it? In the above, are the brethren currently speaking the same things? Are there currently [at the time of the writing] no divisions? When Paul encourages for a unity based on "the same mind and the same judgment," do you think that I am against such? The II Tim passage -- is there some reason why you quoted this passage? BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE so the Man of god may be PERFECT and Throughly Furnished Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
UTTERly Ridiculous Written like a true perfectionist[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "The intellectuals are coming; the intellectuals are coming !! There goes the nieghborhood [sic]Written like a true anti-intellectual.JD Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
There is nothing like an EYEwitness Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can't remember whether or not I've posted this; they are tidbits from a friend who corresponds with our daughter. He has alwayslived in SLC, has been looking for a life partner andis not a Mormon. This guywas raised in the Christian Science sect and apparently he does not find the "street preachers" offensive (Note: the was preparation is for the 2004 GC) ___ And speaking of goofy, I have three amusing tidbits from the local culture to share with you:First, in the polygamist communities, the female-to-male ratio has been really bothering me. I know how hard it is to find a female in a big city, and I couldn't imagine how each guy could find 7 or 8 in a small closed community. There is no way there would be near enough girls to go around, and I wondered how they did it. But I just found out! Periodically they expell a bunch of guys from the community with no explanation. (If a guy has ever done anything to make the leader mad, or question authority, or if he has more desirable women or posessions, he's history. He'll get kicked out.) About 30 guys were just kicked out of one of our local polygamist towns recently, including the chief of police, and other prominent members. When these men are kicked out, all of their wives, children, and posessions are then re-distributed to men that remain in the community. The banished men are forced to leave town with nothing, and are never allowed to come back.The second amusing tidbit is in preparation for the mormon "general conference" that is going on this weekend. (Twice a year, they cancel church on Sunday, and hold 2 big day-long meetings full of speeches from their leaders on Saturday and Sunday, to which mormons from all over flock to Salt Lake to attend). Each time they do this, "street preachers"(non-mormon preachers that want to expose mormons to truth) gather around temple square with signs and shirts that say horrible things like "Read the Bible". Last conference, two of these street preachers were beaten up by angry mormon conference attendees, who stole their signs and some of their belongings. (One preacher was holding up a pair of mormon garments, and I guess that really set off the mormons). Well, to avoid similar violent clashes, the city this year has designated several small "free speech" zones off away from temple square where it will be legal for the street preachers to exercise their freedom of speech, but on all the public sidewalks around temple square it will be illegal for any of themto gather. They just announced the new laws, so there was only time for one lawsuit from the street preachers claiming that the law is unconstitutional and violates their civil rights, but a mormon judge upheld the new ordinance last night, and there is no time for appeals to go higher (where the state and US constitutions would have to be upheld). And, incidentally, mormons are immune from the new ordinance, and they can still send missionaries on any sidewalk and even up to your door to push their beliefs, and they do not have to stay within the little free speech zones. Amazing how that works, isn't it?The third, and most amusing item to me is about the latest mormon film. I've mentioned to you how big of a push there is lately for these mormon films. Well, the latest one that they just finished making just received an "R" rating. That is extremely amusing because mormons are not supposed to see "R"-rated movies. (They went through some appeal process, and somehow got it reduced to a "PG-13" rating, which makes everything OK, and mormons can go see their movie now.) Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[TruthTalk] Anti-intellectualism
JD:Well, you have certainly proven this point -- and a fine testimony to anti-intellectualism you are. I mean, after listening to you for, h, a couple of minutes, one not only sees little value in Continuation Schooling, one sees little point is bullhorn discussions. We have a Continuation School over by the High School. jt: Kevin has been to Bible College John and unless I am mistakenone of his daughters is there now. I believe you are MTP KD: They make things so complex, but then again if we want to really know what partake means they can tell us. So profound partake means partake. JD:You know, Kev, when I was growing up, nearly all my Sunday School teachers were like you. I would ask, "What does [such and such passage mean]?" and they would say, "It speaks for itself." The reason why they did this -- I found out after becoming a [real] man -- was THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE PASSAGE MEANT. jt: Do you really believe your SS teachers didn't know scripture JD? Could have been other extenuating factors like maybe they thought you were not all that curious and were trying to challenge them. JD: You have come back to this discussion group, but not to discuss -- only to yell and scream your admittedly uneducated tripe and hope that you "save" someone. jt: Not an accurate accusation John. Because it is obvious Kevin spends a lot of time researching the focus of his "street ministry" and he knows scripture which is impossible aside fromspending time in it. Maybe you should define what you mean by "uneducated tripe" Your plan is right on schedule. We all feel closer to the Lord because of your efforts. Do I hear a group "amen?" jt: I don't think Kevin is into the "feelings" John - to him truth is more objective than subjective - Please correct me if I am misreading you Kevin.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Here is another eyewitness from the Mesa AZ LDS Easter Pag http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=26988 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=26994 http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff27006.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=27020 Notice how Mormons phrase things such as handing out pamphets on a sidewalk, which becomes "he terrorized my family on the way to Church chasing us down the sidewalk" in a attempt to appeal toyour emotions. Help I have been terrorized by words on a Pamphlet! Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Re: [TruthTalk] Anti-intellectualism
FEELINGS WOOA WOOA WOOA FEELINGS Some men just want to hear the applause of other men Like the scholar The bible tells us to study not to become a fishless fisherman. An expert on all the stuff we DO NOT DO. If I was into warm fuzzies would I be a street preacher? When my first child was born I witnessed that birth. The sense of Awe that I recieved could only be compared to the sense of aweI recieve each time another soul is Born into His kingdom I'm hooked on that feeling. I would rather be a fisherman than to write about it in the "fishermans club" "God save us from living in comfort while sinners are sinking into hell!" Spurgeon The Parable of the Fishless Fishermen There was a group called The Fisherman's Fellowship. They were surrounded by streams and lakes full of hungry fish. They met regularly to discuss the call to fish, the abundance of fish, and the thrill of catching fish. They got excited about fishing! .Someone suggested that they needed a philosophy of fishing, so they carefully defined and redefined fishing, and the purpose of fishing. They developed fishing strategies and tactics. Then they realized that they had been going at it backwards. They had approached fishing from the point of view of the fisherman, and not from the point of view of the fish. How do fish view the world? How does the fisherman appear to the fish? What do fish eat, and when? These are all good things to know. So they began research studies, and attended conferences on fishing. Some traveled to far away places to study different kinds of fish, with different habits. Some got PhD's in fishology. But no one had yet gone fishing. So a committee was formed to send out fisherman. As prospective fishing places outnumbered fisherman, the committee needed to determine priorities. A priority list of fishing places was posted on bulletin boards in all of the fellowship halls. But still, no one was fishing. A survey was launched, to find out why. Most did not answer the survey, but from those that did, it was discovered that some felt called to study fish, a few, to furnish fishing equipment, and several to go around encouraging the fishermen. What with meetings, conferences, and seminars, they just simply didn't have time to fish. .Now, Jake was a newcomer to the Fisherman's Fellowship. After one stirring meeting of the Fellowship, he went fishing and caught a large fish. At the next meeting, he told his story, and he was honored for his catch. He was told that he had a special "gift of fishing." He was then scheduled to speak at all the Fellowship chapters and tell how he did it. With all the speaking invitations and his election to the board of directors of the Fisherman's Fellowship, Jake no longer has time to go fishing. But soon he began to feel restless and empty. He longed to feel the tug on the line once again. So he cut the speaking, he resigned from the board, and he said to a friend, "Let's go fishing." They did, just the two of them, and they caught fish. The members of the Fisherman's Fellowship were many, the fish were plentiful, but the fishers were few! Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JD:Well, you have certainly proven this point -- and a fine testimony to anti-intellectualism you are. I mean, after listening to you for, h, a couple of minutes, one not only sees little value in Continuation Schooling, one sees little point is bullhorn discussions. We have a Continuation School over by the High School. jt: Kevin has been to Bible College John and unless I am mistakenone of his daughters is there now. I believe you are MTP KD: They make things so complex, but then again if we want to really know what partake means they can tell us. So profound partake means partake. JD:You know, Kev, when I was growing up, nearly all my Sunday School teachers were like you. I would ask, "What does [such and such passage mean]?" and they would say, "It speaks for itself." The reason why they did this -- I found out after becoming a [real] man -- was THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE PASSAGE MEANT. jt: Do you really believe your SS teachers didn't know scripture JD? Could have been other extenuating factors like maybe they thought you were not all that curious and were trying to challenge them. JD: You have come back to this discussion group, but not to discuss -- only to yell and scream your admittedly uneducated tripe and hope that you "save" someone. jt: Not an accurate accusation John. Because it is obvious Kevin spends a lot of time researching the focus of his "street ministry" and he knows scripture which is impossible aside fromspending time in it. Maybe you should define what you mean by "uneducated tripe" Your plan is right on schedule. We all feel closer to the Lord because of your efforts. Do I hear a group "amen?" jt: I don't think Kevin is into the "feelings" John - to him truth is more objective than subjective - Please correct me if I am misreading you Kevin. Do you Yahoo!?
Re: [TruthTalk] Anti-intellectualism
Right! We have received freely so we are to give freely giving folks the option to be free. At Pleasant Valley they had a sign on the wall "Feelings come and feelings go and feelings are deceiving My warrant is the Word of God, none else is worth believing" To which I say Amen and Amen! On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:49:46 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FEELINGS WOOA WOOA WOOA FEELINGS Some men just want to hear the applause of other men Like the scholar The bible tells us to study not to become a fishless fisherman. An expert on all the stuff we DO NOT DO. If I was into warm fuzzies would I be a street preacher? When my first child was born I witnessed that birth. The sense of Awe that I recieved could only be compared to the sense of aweI recieve each time another soul is Born into His kingdom I'm hooked on that feeling. I would rather be a fisherman than to write about it in the "fishermans club" "God save us from living in comfort while sinners are sinking into hell!" Spurgeon
[TruthTalk] Feelings.....
Oophs! I forgot the mention that Satan can give us feelings all over the place What about these "burning bosoms"? My manic-depressive friend had received so much secular counselling that she was trained to hone in on feelings. Everything was "and how did that make you feel?" It wasn't until a godly woman took time with here, walking around a parking lot quoting God's Word that the truth began to make her free ... and she is continuing in it and making good progress At times these lies are deeply entrenched and are the source of "the most exquisite and wonderful feelings" judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
the style of the post, below, is appreciated--it simply, but effectively,recognizes the fact that mostdetailed data,reporters info,corollary pics, etc., are best left to be viewedon their original servers--topics of interest can be isolated and addressed here via 'cut and paste' (e.g., of specific quotes) and by summarizing ftr, one of my pt jobs isthe'Web master' of http://coloradoover50baseball.org; usually, on such sites/servers the Web master includes a method to e-mailthe link in questionto someone who may be interested in the contents ofthat Web page--IMO, good web masters won't allow material over load onnarrow avenuesof alreadyhigh volumeWeb traffic, even if the info in question is theirs and, in their estimation, the content is'very good stuff' also, now addressing another aspect of TT posting that DavidM asked me concentrate upon, partic for myself, 'traffic' goes beyond foregoing issue, the length, volume or quantity of info posted--it has todo with the quality of (my)posts maybe other TT posters will take it to heart (while i do) to give preference topostingwisely in less postsas opposed to numerouslessvaluable (perhaps 'junk') replies to a miscellaneousvariety of posts--e.g., jt is getting pretty good at posting this way, i think ftr, David Miller, the TT list owner,is suggesting to try tosummarize thevariety of posts that interest you into a key concept or an outline of conceptsto focus upon, to quote correctly, and, therefore,to answer more wisely--perhaps a fewlesssoda popsper week consumed, more meat per week to eat, in sum the (nutritional)wisdom of t/his request seems to be that thoughdisagreements persist and always will, theactual points of disagreementare importantto focus upon--it means that brevity is cool, but it's not necessary; waxing eloquently, at length,is fine, not necessary, but you, the poster/s, addressing key ideas consistently, thoughtfully, is crucial to actual 'truth talk' if necessary,one may retreat from posting--no problem; this means feel free to be quiet for a while to think more about what matters most to y/our readers; please consider them as v busy people, who, like we do,also have some precious time to spend reading let's make itsomething worthy of theirtime and effort--like takingy/ourwritingrelatively seriouslyis likely to improve the quality and reputation of ourlist your comment, interaction with the post above, by Gary Ottoson, the current moderator of Truth Talk,is requested--privately, if you prefer, or publicly, within the forum cordially, G cc. David Miller On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:33:35 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is another eyewitness from the Mesa AZ LDS Easter Pag http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=26988 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=26994 http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff27006.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=27020 Notice how Mormons phrase things such as handing out pamphets on a sidewalk, which becomes "he terrorized my family on the way to Church chasing us down the sidewalk" in a attempt to appeal toyour emotions. Help I have been terrorized by words on a Pamphlet!
RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Id hate to see TT rule out the banter and joking that makes us laugh and consider each other to be friendsand lightens what can be heavy (or dull) subject matter. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:04 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers the style of the post, below, is appreciated--it simply, but effectively,recognizes the fact that mostdetailed data,reporters info,corollary pics, etc., are best left to be viewedon their original servers--topics of interest can be isolated and addressed here via 'cut and paste' (e.g., of specific quotes) and by summarizing ftr, one of my pt jobs isthe'Web master' of http://coloradoover50baseball.org; usually, on such sites/servers the Web master includes a method to e-mailthe link in questionto someone who may be interested in the contents ofthat Web page--IMO, good web masters won't allow material over load onnarrow avenuesof alreadyhigh volumeWeb traffic, even if the info in question is theirs and, in their estimation, the content is'very good stuff' also, now addressing another aspect of TT posting that DavidM asked me concentrate upon, partic for myself, 'traffic' goes beyond foregoing issue, the length, volume or quantity of info posted--it has todo with the quality of (my)posts maybe other TT posters will take it to heart (while i do) to give preference topostingwisely in less postsas opposed to numerouslessvaluable (perhaps 'junk') replies to a miscellaneousvariety of posts--e.g., jt is getting pretty good at posting this way, i think ftr, David Miller, the TT list owner,is suggesting to try tosummarize thevariety of posts that interest you into a key concept or an outline of conceptsto focus upon, to quote correctly, and, therefore,to answer more wisely--perhaps a fewlesssoda popsper week consumed, more meat per week to eat, in sum the (nutritional)wisdom of t/his request seems to be that thoughdisagreements persist and always will, theactual points of disagreementare importantto focus upon--it means that brevity is cool, but it's not necessary; waxing eloquently, at length,is fine, not necessary, but you, the poster/s, addressing key ideas consistently, thoughtfully, is crucial to actual 'truth talk' if necessary,one may retreat from posting--no problem; this means feel free to be quiet for a while to think more about what matters most to y/our readers; please consider them as v busy people, who, like we do,also have some precious time to spend reading let's make itsomething worthy of theirtime and effort--like takingy/ourwritingrelatively seriouslyis likely to improve the quality and reputation of ourlist your comment, interaction with the post above, by Gary Ottoson, the current moderator of Truth Talk,is requested--privately, if you prefer, or publicly, within the forum cordially, G cc. David Miller On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:33:35 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is another eyewitness from the Mesa AZ LDS Easter Pag http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=26988 http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=26994 http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff27006.htm http://www.ripoffreport.com/view.asp?id=27020 Notice how Mormons phrase things such as handing out pamphets on a sidewalk, which becomes he terrorized my family on the way to Church chasing us down the sidewalk in a attempt to appeal toyour emotions. Help I have been terrorized by words on a Pamphlet!
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
while it's actually funny/friendly, it's cool, kinda like chocolate which is better than pops--someis usuallysufficient for most ppl On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:24:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Id hate to see TT rule out the banter and joking that makes us laugh and consider each other to be friend ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Gary:When you are right.Bill Taylor wrote a masterful treatment on the two natures of Christ. It went largely unnoticed.And you...you're good you! (Crystal/DeNiro) I hope it works out the three of you to spend that time together. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 13, 2005 12:33 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers while it's actually funny/friendly, it's cool, kinda like chocolate which is better than pops--someis usuallysufficient for most ppl On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:24:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Id hate to see TT rule out the banter and joking that makes us laugh and consider each other to be friend ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Feelings.....
JT I forgot the mention that Satan can give us feelings all over the place What about these "burning bosoms"? How aboutseducing spirits? Do they allure the heart or the mind? Seducers are more dangerous enemies to the church than persecutors. Matthew Henry The unattended garden will soon be overrun with weeds; the heart that fails to cultivate truth and root out error will shortly be a theological wilderness. A.W. Tozer "The devil is a great student in divinity."William Gurnall "By entertaining of strange persons, men sometimes entertain angels unawares: but by entertaining of strange doctrines, many have entertained devils unaware." John Flavel Pride is the highway to utter apostasy. . . . Mark those that are proud in any town, or any company of professors of piety; and if any infection of heresy or infidelity come into that place, these are the men that will soonest catch it. . . . Richard Baxter Men do not differ much about what things they call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. G. K. Chesterton Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oophs! I forgot the mention that Satan can give us feelings all over the place What about these "burning bosoms"? My manic-depressive friend had received so much secular counselling that she was trained to hone in on feelings Everything was "and how did that make you feel?" It wasn't until a godly woman took time with here, walking around a parking lot quoting God's Word that the truth began to make her free ... and she is continuing in it and making good progress At times these lies are deeply entrenched and are the source of "the most exquisite and wonderful feelings" judyt Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
It wasn'tunnoticed Lance but not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures. We fallen ones are the double natured and double mindedones(after we have received Him and have been born of the Spirit) and before we grow into the unity of the faith. Why didn't you respond to Bill's post since you seem to be able to relate to everything he writes? judyt On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:44:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:When you are right.Bill Taylor wrote a masterful treatment on the two natures of Christ. It went largely unnoticed.And you...you're good you! (Crystal/DeNiro) I hope it works out the three of you to spend that time together. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] while it's actually funny/friendly, it's cool, kinda like chocolate which is better than pops--someis usuallysufficient for most ppl On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:24:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Id hate to see TT rule out the banter and joking that makes us laugh and consider each other to be friend ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Judy wrote It wasn'tunnoticed Lance but not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures. Would all those who believe that Jesus did not have two natures -- one fully human, the other fully divine -- please weigh in? (the Mormons may exclude themselves if they wish). It would be nice to know how lonesome it's going to be around here. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers It wasn'tunnoticed Lance but not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures. We fallen ones are the double natured and double mindedones(after we have received Him and have been born of the Spirit) and before we grow into the unity of the faith. Why didn't you respond to Bill's post since you seem to be able to relate to everything he writes? judyt On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:44:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:When you are right.Bill Taylor wrote a masterful treatment on the two natures of Christ. It went largely unnoticed.And you...you're good you! (Crystal/DeNiro) I hope it works out the three of you to spend that time together. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] while it's actually funny/friendly, it's cool, kinda like chocolate which is better than pops--someis usuallysufficient for most ppl On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:24:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Id hate to see TT rule out the banter and joking that makes us laugh and consider each other to be friend ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Which two natures are you asking about? Human/Divine Impeccability/peccability of ChristBill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote It wasn'tunnoticed Lance but not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures. Would all those who believe that Jesus did not have two natures -- one fully human, the other fully divine -- please weigh in? (the Mormons may exclude themselves if they wish). It would be nice to know how lonesome it's going to be around here. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers It wasn'tunnoticed Lance but not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures. We fallen ones are the double natured and double mindedones(after we have received Him and have been born of the Spirit) and before we grow into the unity of the faith. Why didn't you respond to Bill's post since you seem to be able to relate to everything he writes? judyt On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:44:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:When you are right.Bill Taylor wrote a masterful treatment on the two natures of Christ. It went largely unnoticed.And you...you're good you! (Crystal/DeNiro) I hope it works out the three of you to spend that time together. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] while it's actually funny/friendly, it's cool, kinda like chocolate which is better than pops--someis usuallysufficient for most ppl On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:24:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Id hate to see TT rule out the banter and joking that makes us laugh and consider each other to be friend || Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
In a message dated 2/13/2005 9:50:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:When you are right.Bill Taylor wrote a masterful treatment on the two natures of Christ. It went largely unnoticed. And you...you're good you! (Crystal/DeNiro) I hope it works out the three of you to spend that time together. What - does t his mean what I think it means? JD - I will keep reading. Bill's article on the nature of Christ was great -- and put in my personal archives
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Bill Taylor wrote: Judy wroteIt wasn't unnoticed Lance but not all of us (me included) believe that Jesus had two natures. Would all those who believe that Jesus did not have two natures -- one fully human, the other fully divine -- please weigh in? (the Mormons may exclude themselves if they wish). It would be nice to know how lonesome it's going to be around here. Bill It is in the past Bill. He came. He did what He had planned to do. He went back. He is no longer just king of the Jews. He is now king of kings. We don't need to quibble over details. However He did it, He did it right. What is important is who He is now. Savior, or judge? I obviously see things in a much less complex manner than you, and I cannot quite grasp why it is so important to dissect every word and argue over things none of us can fully understand. You were just as saved before you knew Greek as you are now. I think that when Paul wrote his letters that he simply expected them to be read. I don't think he meant for them to be put under a microscope, or for people who claim Christ to foam at the mouth because we can't agree if a word means this or that. I am afraid that Satan is using all this to drive a wedge between people who are commanded to love one another. You probably won't agree, but it is worth thinking about. 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] Mormons and Street Preachers
he died |now he lives again -- basically, thetwo distinct inseparable natures of JCin play in NT history G 2/13 Bill: "who believe[s] that Jesus did not have two natures "[?] -- On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:27:22 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
That's the wrong question, Kevin. We can discuss the particularsof those natures if you like, butJudy's claim is that Jesus did not have TWO natures. Do you agree with her? Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers Which two natures are you asking about? Human/Divine Impeccability/peccability of ChristBill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote It wasn'tunnoticed Lance but not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures. Would all those who believe that Jesus did not have two natures -- one fully human, the other fully divine -- please weigh in? (the Mormons may exclude themselves if they wish). It would be nice to know how lonesome it's going to be around here. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers It wasn'tunnoticed Lance but not allof us (me included)believe that Jesus had two natures. We fallen ones are the double natured and double mindedones(after we have received Him and have been born of the Spirit) and before we grow into the unity of the faith. Why didn't you respond to Bill's post since you seem to be able to relate to everything he writes? judyt On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:44:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:When you are right.Bill Taylor wrote a masterful treatment on the two natures of Christ. It went largely unnoticed.And you...you're good you! (Crystal/DeNiro) I hope it works out the three of you to spend that time together. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] while it's actually funny/friendly, it's cool, kinda like chocolate which is better than pops--someis usuallysufficient for most ppl On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:24:02 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Id hate to see TT rule out the banter and joking that makes us laugh and consider each other to be friend || Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Terry wrote I obviously see things in a much less complex manner than you, and Icannot quite grasp why it is so important to dissect every word andargue over things none of us can fully understand. You were just assaved before you knew Greek as you are now. I think that when Paul wrote his letters that he simply expected them tobe read. I don't think he meant for them to be put under a microscope,or for people who claim Christ to foam at the mouth because we can'tagree if a word means this or that. I am afraid that Satan is using allthis to drive a wedge between people who are commanded to love one another. You probably won't agree, but it is worth thinking about. Terry Oh contrar, Terry. I do agree with you. When Paul wrote his letters, his readers could simply read them and they did not need to put them under a microscope, and this is because they spoke Greek and they lived in the culture relevant to those words. But now two thousand years later, in a culture far removed from theirs and speaking a language other than Greek, we have a responsibility to read Paul (and all Scripture) with the utmost care; and if that means arguing over the meaning of words, then thank God for those who have learned the language and preserved their meaning. Surely you will now also agree with me that it will not do for us to redefine words on whimsjust to make them fit with our arguments (which is what DeHaan did, and which is why I went to the effort of posting the definition of metecho from so many sources). To do that is as wrong as anything the SP types are up in arms about. And if left unchecked, it will have a far greater reaching detrimental effect on all of humanity thanany of the behavioral sins. And this is because when words lose their meaning, we loseour standard by which to determine right from wrong behavior. Bill Oh, and was yours a nice way of saying that you disagree with Judy? I'll ask the question again: Do you believe that Jesus did not have two natures, that he was not fully God and fully man?
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
jt: Do you believe the first Adam was "something other than human" also? Hi Judy, I take it you are speaking of the first Adam inhis pre-fallen state. And so, the answer is, No, I do not believe he was something other than human -- neither do I believe that Adam needed "saved" prior to the fall. But he did after it. And so did all humanity after the fall. And that is the humanity Christ came to save: i.e., fallen humanity. To have assumed a nature other than the one he came to save would be to leave that which was fallen untouched and unredeemed, still in its sin. That is what the early church meant when it said things like the unassumed is unsaved and that which was not taken up in Christ was not saved. In fact, I'll shareseveral quotes with you from early Christians. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, The unassumed is the unhealed; but what is united to Christ is saved. If only half of Adam fell, then what Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of him who was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. (Ep.,101; cf. Or., 1.23; 22.13) And in a similar statement Gregory Nyssen wrote, He who came for this cause, that he might seek and save that which was lost (i.e., what the shepherd in the parable calls the sheep), both finds that which is lost, and carries home on his shoulder the whole sheep, not just the fleece, that he might make the man of God complete, united to God in body and soul. And thus he who was in all points tempted as we are yet without sin, left no part of our nature which he did not take up into himself. (Anter. con. Eun., Jaeger, 2. pg. 386) And in another Basil argued, If Christ had not come in our flesh, he could not have slain sin in the flesh and restored and reunited to God the humanity which fell in Adam and became alienated from God. (Ep., 261.2) And years earlier it was Athanasius who wrote, It was impossible to pay one thing as a ransom in exchange for a different thing; on the contrary, he gave body for body and soul for soul and complete existence for the whole man. This is the reconciling exchange of Christ. (Con. Apol., 1.17) And while you may not respect these guys, and you may not give what they say any bearing in your interpretive framework, you should know that when you go against them, you are cutting against your own heritage as a Christian. These are the great defenders of our Faith, upon whose statements the church universal was made able to stand in orthodoxy against the heresies of both the Arians and the Apollinarians. And you should know this, too, Judy, that when youreject this teaching, it is you who takes the side of the heterodox and not they; and it is they who stand in the stream of classic orthodoxy and not you.This may not concern you, I know -- but it should. ___ Judy wrote We are not born into this world "alive to God" Bill, in fact we are dead in trespasses and sin (see Eph 2) The language to which you refer is metaphorical, Judy,and is not to be taken in your dualistic frame of reference. Again, it was not until Augustine that Christians began to think in the dichotomous terms of physical life in spiritual death. Jesus was never ever "dead in trespasses and sin" other than during that 3hrs on the cross. Yes he defeated principalities and powers but there are many who "believe" the good news who are still just as bound by them as they were before they believed. So why is that? They probably believe something similar to what you are teaching, Judy. Hence, they are in bondage because they believe in something less than the truth (I hope that's I nice way of putting it). But when one believes the good news of his salvation and receives the Holy Spirit,that person has received the Truth, and that truth makes him free, and he does not return to the indwelt bondages of his prior beliefs, when he lived in the lies of this world. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:05:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Yes - I agree with you - Jesus was born witha human spirit inside his human body like all humans have. The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive "a measure" whenwe are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our human spirit passes from death to life). Any problems? bt: Yes, big
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Bill Taylor wrote: Terry wroteI obviously see things in a much less complex manner than you, and I cannot quite grasp why it is so important to dissect every word and argue over things none of us can fully understand. You were just as saved before you knew Greek as you are now. I think that when Paul wrote his letters that he simply expected them to be read. I don't think he meant for them to be put under a microscope, or for people who claim Christ to foam at the mouth because we can't agree if a word means this or that. I am afraid that Satan is using all this to drive a wedge between people who are commanded to love one another. You probably won't agree, but it is worth thinking about. Terry Oh contrar, Terry. I do agree with you. When Paul wrote his letters, his readers could simply read them and they did not need to put them under a microscope, and this is because they spoke Greek and they lived in the culture relevant to those words. But now two thousand years later, in a culture far removed from theirs and speaking a language other than Greek, we have a responsibility to read Paul (and all Scripture) with the utmost care; and if that means arguing over the meaning of words, then thank God for those who have learned the language and preserved their meaning. Surely you will now also agree with me that it will not do for us to redefine words on whims just to make them fit with our arguments (which is what DeHaan did, and which is why I went to the effort of posting the definition of metecho from so many sources). To do that is as wrong as anything the SP types are up in arms about. And if left unchecked, it will have a far greater reaching detrimental effect on all of humanity than any of the behavioral sins. And this is because when words lose their meaning, we lose our standard by which to determine right from wrong behavior. Bill Oh, and was yours a nice way of saying that you disagree with Judy? I'll ask the question again: Do you believe that Jesus did not have two natures, that he was not fully God and fully man? = Like I indicated earlier, I do not dwell at length on these things, but just off the top of my head, I would say that since He had God for a father and a human for a mother, he would be a hybred. God and human combined. Since God is far more powerful than man, I would assume that the characteristics of the Father would be dominant. I can understand part this and part that. I cannot understand fully plus fully. It does not compute. If you have a cup full of coffee and pour in a cup of milk, what does not run over is still a cup, but it is a mixture, no longer fully this and fully that. Hope this answers your question. Nothing carved in stone, but the best I can come up with. If you do not agree, it is no big deal. He is my Savior. That is enough. 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] Mormons and Street Preachers
And neither is it pure Coffee, nor pure milk. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers Bill Taylor wrote: Terry wroteI obviously see things in a much less complex manner than you, and I cannot quite grasp why it is so important to dissect every word and argue over things none of us can fully understand. You were just as saved before you knew Greek as you are now. I think that when Paul wrote his letters that he simply expected them to be read. I don't think he meant for them to be put under a microscope, or for people who claim Christ to foam at the mouth because we can't agree if a word means this or that. I am afraid that Satan is using all this to drive a wedge between people who are commanded to love one another. You probably won't agree, but it is worth thinking about. Terry Oh contrar, Terry. I do agree with you. When Paul wrote his letters, his readers could simply read them and they did not need to put them under a microscope, and this is because they spoke Greek and they lived in the culture relevant to those words. But now two thousand years later, in a culture far removed from theirs and speaking a language other than Greek, we have a responsibility to read Paul (and all Scripture) with the utmost care; and if that means arguing over the meaning of words, then thank God for those who have learned the language and preserved their meaning. Surely you will now also agree with me that it will not do for us to redefine words on whims just to make them fit with our arguments (which is what DeHaan did, and which is why I went to the effort of posting the definition of metecho from so many sources). To do that is as wrong as anything the SP types are up in arms about. And if left unchecked, it will have a far greater reaching detrimental effect on all of humanity than any of the behavioral sins. And this is because when words lose their meaning, we lose our standard by which to determine right from wrong behavior. Bill Oh, and was yours a nice way of saying that you disagree with Judy? I'll ask the question again: Do you believe that Jesus did not have two natures, that he was not fully God and fully man? = Like I indicated earlier, I do not dwell at length on these things, but just off the top of my head, I would say that since He had God for a father and a human for a mother, he would be a hybred. God and human combined. Since God is far more powerful than man, I would assume that the characteristics of the Father would be dominant. I can understand part this and part that. I cannot understand fully plus fully. It does not compute. If you have a cup full of coffee and pour in a cup of milk, what does not run over is still a cup, but it is a mixture, no longer fully this and fully that. Hope this answers your question. Nothing carved in stone, but the best I can come up with. If you do not agree, it is no big deal. He is my Savior. That is enough. 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] Mormons and Street Preachers
. . . But it has become an alloy -- in the case of Jesus: a demigod. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers Bill Taylor wrote: Terry wroteI obviously see things in a much less complex manner than you, and I cannot quite grasp why it is so important to dissect every word and argue over things none of us can fully understand. You were just as saved before you knew Greek as you are now. I think that when Paul wrote his letters that he simply expected them to be read. I don't think he meant for them to be put under a microscope, or for people who claim Christ to foam at the mouth because we can't agree if a word means this or that. I am afraid that Satan is using all this to drive a wedge between people who are commanded to love one another. You probably won't agree, but it is worth thinking about. Terry Oh contrar, Terry. I do agree with you. When Paul wrote his letters, his readers could simply read them and they did not need to put them under a microscope, and this is because they spoke Greek and they lived in the culture relevant to those words. But now two thousand years later, in a culture far removed from theirs and speaking a language other than Greek, we have a responsibility to read Paul (and all Scripture) with the utmost care; and if that means arguing over the meaning of words, then thank God for those who have learned the language and preserved their meaning. Surely you will now also agree with me that it will not do for us to redefine words on whims just to make them fit with our arguments (which is what DeHaan did, and which is why I went to the effort of posting the definition of metecho from so many sources). To do that is as wrong as anything the SP types are up in arms about. And if left unchecked, it will have a far greater reaching detrimental effect on all of humanity than any of the behavioral sins. And this is because when words lose their meaning, we lose our standard by which to determine right from wrong behavior. Bill Oh, and was yours a nice way of saying that you disagree with Judy? I'll ask the question again: Do you believe that Jesus did not have two natures, that he was not fully God and fully man? = Like I indicated earlier, I do not dwell at length on these things, but just off the top of my head, I would say that since He had God for a father and a human for a mother, he would be a hybred. God and human combined. Since God is far more powerful than man, I would assume that the characteristics of the Father would be dominant. I can understand part this and part that. I cannot understand fully plus fully. It does not compute. If you have a cup full of coffee and pour in a cup of milk, what does not run over is still a cup, but it is a mixture, no longer fully this and fully that. Hope this answers your question. Nothing carved in stone, but the best I can come up with. If you do not agree, it is no big deal. He is my Savior. That is enough. 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] Mormons and Street Preachers
Terry wroteI cannot understand fully plus fully. It does not compute. Not even when it's been explained to you? Hmmm. It sounds to me like you are not trying. You once spoke of your 130 IQ. What do you do with the 90% you are ignoring? Send it over to me if you like; I'll put it to work :) Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers Bill Taylor wrote: Terry wroteI obviously see things in a much less complex manner than you, and I cannot quite grasp why it is so important to dissect every word and argue over things none of us can fully understand. You were just as saved before you knew Greek as you are now. I think that when Paul wrote his letters that he simply expected them to be read. I don't think he meant for them to be put under a microscope, or for people who claim Christ to foam at the mouth because we can't agree if a word means this or that. I am afraid that Satan is using all this to drive a wedge between people who are commanded to love one another. You probably won't agree, but it is worth thinking about. Terry Oh contrar, Terry. I do agree with you. When Paul wrote his letters, his readers could simply read them and they did not need to put them under a microscope, and this is because they spoke Greek and they lived in the culture relevant to those words. But now two thousand years later, in a culture far removed from theirs and speaking a language other than Greek, we have a responsibility to read Paul (and all Scripture) with the utmost care; and if that means arguing over the meaning of words, then thank God for those who have learned the language and preserved their meaning. Surely you will now also agree with me that it will not do for us to redefine words on whims just to make them fit with our arguments (which is what DeHaan did, and which is why I went to the effort of posting the definition of metecho from so many sources). To do that is as wrong as anything the SP types are up in arms about. And if left unchecked, it will have a far greater reaching detrimental effect on all of humanity than any of the behavioral sins. And this is because when words lose their meaning, we lose our standard by which to determine right from wrong behavior. Bill Oh, and was yours a nice way of saying that you disagree with Judy? I'll ask the question again: Do you believe that Jesus did not have two natures, that he was not fully God and fully man? = Like I indicated earlier, I do not dwell at length on these things, but just off the top of my head, I would say that since He had God for a father and a human for a mother, he would be a hybred. God and human combined. Since God is far more powerful than man, I would assume that the characteristics of the Father would be dominant. I can understand part this and part that. I cannot understand fully plus fully. It does not compute. If you have a cup full of coffee and pour in a cup of milk, what does not run over is still a cup, but it is a mixture, no longer fully this and fully that. Hope this answers your question. Nothing carved in stone, but the best I can come up with. If you do not agree, it is no big deal. He is my Savior. That is enough. 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] Mormons and Street Preachers
I will say this for you, Terry: at least you are willing to admit that your Jesus is a hybrid. The Greeks had no problems with that (as I explained yesterday, if you had been reading), they had a pantheon of them. But Judy wants to hold onto the same idea, without admitting to its source. Kudos to you -- at least, Terry, you are an honest ol' cuss. Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers Terry wroteI cannot understand fully plus fully. It does not compute. Not even when it's been explained to you? Hmmm. It sounds to me like you are not trying. You once spoke of your 130 IQ. What do you do with the 90% you are ignoring? Send it over to me if you like; I'll put it to work :) Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers Bill Taylor wrote: Terry wroteI obviously see things in a much less complex manner than you, and I cannot quite grasp why it is so important to dissect every word and argue over things none of us can fully understand. You were just as saved before you knew Greek as you are now. I think that when Paul wrote his letters that he simply expected them to be read. I don't think he meant for them to be put under a microscope, or for people who claim Christ to foam at the mouth because we can't agree if a word means this or that. I am afraid that Satan is using all this to drive a wedge between people who are commanded to love one another. You probably won't agree, but it is worth thinking about. Terry Oh contrar, Terry. I do agree with you. When Paul wrote his letters, his readers could simply read them and they did not need to put them under a microscope, and this is because they spoke Greek and they lived in the culture relevant to those words. But now two thousand years later, in a culture far removed from theirs and speaking a language other than Greek, we have a responsibility to read Paul (and all Scripture) with the utmost care; and if that means arguing over the meaning of words, then thank God for those who have learned the language and preserved their meaning. Surely you will now also agree with me that it will not do for us to redefine words on whims just to make them fit with our arguments (which is what DeHaan did, and which is why I went to the effort of posting the definition of metecho from so many sources). To do that is as wrong as anything the SP types are up in arms about. And if left unchecked, it will have a far greater reaching detrimental effect on all of humanity than any of the behavioral sins. And this is because when words lose their meaning, we lose our standard by which to determine right from wrong behavior. Bill Oh, and was yours a nice way of saying that you disagree with Judy? I'll ask the question again: Do you believe that Jesus did not have two natures, that he was not fully God and fully man? = Like I indicated earlier, I do not dwell at length on these things, but just off the top of my head, I would say that since He had God for a father and a human for a mother, he would be a hybred. God and human combined. Since God is far more powerful than man, I would assume that the characteristics of the Father would be dominant. I can understand part this and part that. I cannot understand fully plus fully. It does not compute. If you have a cup full of coffee and pour in a cup of milk, what does not run over is still a cup, but it is a mixture, no longer fully this and fully that. Hope this answers your question. Nothing carved in stone, but the best I can come up with. If you do not agree, it is no big deal. He is my Savior. That is enough. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers
Bill Taylor wrote: I will say this for you, Terry: at least you are willing to admit that your Jesus is a hybrid. The Greeks had no problems with that (as I explained yesterday, if you had been reading), they had a pantheon of them. But Judy wants to hold onto the same idea, without admitting to its source. Kudos to you -- at least, Terry, you are an honest ol' cuss. Bill Like I said before, that is the way it seems to me to be, but that is not carved in stone. I could be right or I could be wrong. Doesn't make much difference either way. I am not saved by knowing it all. I am saved by trusting and living for Jesus. 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] Mormons and Street Preachers
Good enough then. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers Bill Taylor wrote: I will say this for you, Terry: at least you are willing to admit that your Jesus is a hybrid. The Greeks had no problems with that (as I explained yesterday, if you had been reading), they had a pantheon of them. But Judy wants to hold onto the same idea, without admitting to its source. Kudos to you -- at least, Terry, you are an honest ol' cuss. Bill Like I said before, that is the way it seems to me to be, but that is not carved in stone. I could be right or I could be wrong. Doesn't make much difference either way. I am not saved by knowing it all. I am saved by trusting and living for Jesus. 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] Original Sin
In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other times, but not here. Instead he said, "And for their sakes I SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." I agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. Bill If "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? JD
[TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature
I'm putting my thoughts about all this squabbling about Jesus' nature under a new heading, as it had nothing to do with mormons. For what it's worth, (nothing to Lance and friends Im sure) here are my two cents: 1) I believe in Original Sin only as it means that we are born with the Flesh Nature, and we are sure to live in it once we are old enough to choose between what we know is right vs wrong. No human being has ever yet failed to commit sin once they are old enough to choose, other than Jesus. I do not believe a newborn is born guilty of sin. One must sin by volition, not by condition. Otherwise, if one is born with imputed sin and is therefore a sinner even before taking that first breath outside the womb, God must condemn every aborted fetus to hell. That's just not the God I see in scripture. 2) I believe that Jesus had God for a Father, and a human sinner for a mother. Thus He also inherited Adam's sin-nature, just like all of us. Otherwise He could not have been tempted in all ways as we are. I believe he was not only tempted, as in recognized mentally that someone was trying to tempt Him, but that He actually at times felt tempted, just like we do. Otherwise, He cheated. If He wasnt even capable of sinning, then the fact that He never sinned was meaningless. His substitution on the cross was a hoax, because He didnt really overcome anything, because He just did His God thing and didnt suffer like we do when we are tempted. I Peter 5:10 After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. What is that suffering but resisting the temptation of satan? We know that Jesus was tempted, that He suffered, that He experienced anger, grief, and the same emotions that we do. He was completely Human in the same way that we are. 3) I believe that Jesus was actually God the Father manifesting Himself on earth as a Real Human Being. He was Gods Son in that way. The only-begotten of the Father. He was fully God. 4) I believe that Jesus was born fully man, as a real human being, with that same sin-nature (Meaning ability to walk in the Flesh vs the Spirit) that we have. He could actually have sinned! One manifestation of Adams Fall in Gods creation is that physical death came upon all human beings. Prior to the Fall (for those of you from Rio Linda, that means when Adam committed the first sin), Adam, Eve, and all their subsequent progeny would have lived eternally. But since the Fall, every human being has aged and then died. Did Jesus age? Yes. If Jesus had not died on the cross, would He have aged and died physically? I believe He would have. He was human in all ways that we are. 5) BECAUSE Jesus was as human as we are, but never sinned, He was the one and only One qualified to be our substitute on the crossand die for OUR sins. But He ALSO came as an example to us, that since He suffered temptation in the very same ways that we do, and NEVER sinned, that WE can do that also!! How can we do that? By becoming indwelt by the same Holy Spirit that indwelt Him! NOW we actually DO have a CHOICE of whether or not to sin! Just as He took on our real Flesh nature from Adam and never sinned, we can now receive the Holy Spirit from Him and never sin! 6) And just as Jesus was not imputed as a guilty sinner due to his fleshly human nature, that is why I believe that newborn infants are not imputed as guilty of sins they never committed, and are guiltless before God unless/until they live to be old enough to choose to sin. If Original Sin means that we are born guilty and deserving of hell then Jesus was born guilty by His human nature, and could never have been the Sinless Lamb of God who died for our sins. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Nephi or Moroni?
Blaine wrote see below** -- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joseph Smith wrote: Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things which brought wound upon my Soul [sic] and there were many things which transpired that cannot be writen [sic] and my Fathers [sic] family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions. Blaine wrote: This is a beautiful account written by a humble man, Joseph Smith. Thank you for finding it. It makes me very happy that he was willing to admit he was not perfect. What Joseph Smith wrote here is despicable. Visions from God inherently have the opposite effect as described by Smith. They lead one to walk far above sin. **BLAINE: One can only conjecture what Joseph was referring to, but it apparently was not too serious. He admitted to levity. (:) Blaine wrote: I once had a spiritual experience which, like that of Joseph Smith, filled my heart with love for many days. I know exactly how that feels. Did you also sin in many things after your experience? **BLAINE: No. I was out of work then, and found a job the very next day. The peace I felt from the experience gave me the faith to find the job. 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] Original Sin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth? He said that sort of thing at other times, but not here. Instead he said, And for their sakes I SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. I agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. Bill If sanctify is more than to set apart, what are the additional nuances? JD I Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. sanctify To set apart for sacred use; consecrate. To make holy; purify. To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow: sanctify a marriage. To give social or moral sanction to. To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
John wrote If "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? Hi John, The distinction I am drawing is not at all adverse to the idea that sanctify means to set apart. What I am saying is that sanctification, if it is truly going to sanctify us, has to be internal to us and not external only. In other words, it is not enough to be "sanctified" if that only means you are going to remove yourself from exposure to sin and the evil elements of the world; and this is because the sin problem is internal to you and all of us, before it becomes externalized in ourbehavioralacts. If what Jesus meantwhen he said he sanctifies himself wasonly that he was being an example that his disciples might see and emulate, then we -- his disciples -- are still in our sins and cannot help but fail to follow the example. But ifwhen he said this, he was speaking to an internal sanctification on his part, then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivitiesthat produce evil within humanity, in order that his disciples might then be able to be sanctified as well. I am arguing that that is exactly what he did mean and that he didthis throughout his life -- which was a true sanctification of the human nature; in other words, there is genuine holiness in this. Once the tyrants were defeated in Christ, and he was resurrected innew humanity, and he sent his Spirit to indwell us,well, that isChrist in us, the hope of Glory! That is when we, his disciples, truly can be sanctified by the Word of God. We are now internally equipped to follow his external example, because in him -- and for us, andthus in us as well --the internal volitions were defeated and a new humanity resides in place of the old. Hallelujah! Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:39:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other times, but not here. Instead he said, "And for their sakes I SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." I agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me what you think of it. BillIf "sanctify" is more than "to set apart," what are the additional nuances? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature
Well thought out, Izzy. And well stated, too. Any disagreements I might have are so slight as to not even be worth bringing up under this circumstance. Thank you and kudos. Bill PS, Izzy. I just read it again and I mean a REALLY BIG KUDOS! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:33 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Jesus' Nature I'm putting my thoughts about all this squabbling about Jesus' nature under a new heading, as it had nothing to do with mormons. For what it's worth, (nothing to Lance and friends Im sure) here are my two cents: 1) I believe in "Original Sin" only as it means that we are born with the Flesh Nature, and we are sure to live in it once we are old enough to choose between what we know is right vs wrong. No human being has ever yet failed to commit sin once they are old enough to choose, other than Jesus. I do not believe a newborn is born guilty of sin. One must sin by volition, not by condition. Otherwise, if one is born with imputed sin and is therefore a sinner even before taking that first breath outside the womb, God must condemn every aborted fetus to hell. That's just not the God I see in scripture. 2) I believe that Jesus had God for a Father, and a human sinner for a mother. Thus He also inherited Adam's sin-nature, just like all of us. Otherwise He could not have been "tempted in all ways as we are." I believe he was not only tempted, as in recognized mentally that someone was trying to tempt Him, but that He actually at times felt tempted, just like we do. Otherwise, He cheated. If He wasnt even capable of sinning, then the fact that He never sinned was meaningless. His substitution on the cross was a hoax, because He didnt really overcome anything, because He just did His God thing and didnt suffer like we do when we are tempted. I Peter 5:10 After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. What is that suffering but resisting the temptation of satan? We know that Jesus was tempted, that He suffered, that He experienced anger, grief, and the same emotions that we do. He was completely Human in the same way that we are. 3) I believe that Jesus was actually God the Father manifesting Himself on earth as a Real Human Being. He was Gods Son in that way. The only-begotten of the Father. He was fully God. 4) I believe that Jesus was born fully man, as a real human being, with that same sin-nature (Meaning ability to walk in the Flesh vs the Spirit) that we have. He could actually have sinned! One manifestation of Adams Fall in Gods creation is that physical death came upon all human beings. Prior to the Fall (for those of you from Rio Linda, that means when Adam committed the first sin), Adam, Eve, and all their subsequent progeny would have lived eternally. But since the Fall, every human being has aged and then died. Did Jesus age? Yes. If Jesus had not died on the cross, would He have aged and died physically? I believe He would have. He was human in all ways that we are. 5) BECAUSE Jesus was as human as we are, but never sinned, He was the one and only One qualified to be our substitute on the crossand die for OUR sins. But He ALSO came as an example to us, that since He suffered temptation in the very same ways that we do, and NEVER sinned, that WE can do that also!! How can we do that? By becoming indwelt by the same Holy Spirit that indwelt Him! NOW we actually DO have a CHOICE of whether or not to sin! Just as He took on our real Flesh nature from Adam and never sinned, we can now receive the Holy Spirit from Him and never sin! 6) And just as Jesus was not imputed as a guilty sinner due to his fleshly human nature, that is why I believe that newborn infants are not imputed as guilty of sins they never committed, and are guiltless before God unless/until they live to be old enough to choose to sin. If Original Sin means that we are born guilty and deserving of hell then Jesus was born guilty by His human nature, and could never have been the Sinless Lamb of God who died for our sins. Izzy
