Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
DAVEH: Would that apply to one who erroneously would suggest that all those who disagree with the LDS Church are anti-Mormons? :-) Kevin Deegan wrote: All it takes isONE internal Inconsistency or ERROR to make it a PHONY -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Bill writes:I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined asa similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You arenot dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealingwith some"centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of "centuries old" doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed it down fast. My daughter-in-law has a newly energized hunger for God and she is asking me about commentaries because we live in a fast food era where we want everything yesterday. However, I hesitate because I don't want to fill that God-given hunger with error thatwill slow her down. Better for her to see it in God's Word. And yes, there is aspiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more than spiritual: those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit. I would like to quote a verse and then ask you a couple questions."Then Jesus said to them, 'A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going'" (John 12.35). Do you agree with me that the "darkness" in which the rebellious man walks is not literal darkness; in other words he may be walking in daylight, yet still be walking in darkness in accordance with this passage? If you agree with me, it is because you are able to
Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
OK you win it takes 2 ERRORS to make it a PHONY!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Would that apply to one who erroneously would suggest that all those who disagree with the LDS Church are anti-Mormons? :-) Kevin Deegan wrote: All it takes isONE internal Inconsistency or ERROR to make it a PHONY-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
So as you can see Joe was a MEDIUM a Spirit Channeler The LDS Hymn should be changed to "We thank thee O God for a Warlock" Even the Book of Commandments syas Joe had power with the ROD, he was a diviner. "The gift of working with the rod" (Book of Commandments 7:3) The Book of Mormon was delivered by a Familiar Spirit! Sticking ones face in a hat filled with a "SEER Stone" is nothing more than a Seance What did the SEER see in the stone? Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they say to you, Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter, should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them Leviticus 19:31: Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. http://www.fillthevoid.org/Occult/necromancy.htmlKevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are describing a common hang-up with the BoM, which isnot much of a hang-up since it is simply based upon the presumption thatwhen JS translated the plates, he did so word for word According to some of the EYEWITNESSES, Joe dropped a magical seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. The actual words and letters appeared like MAGIC. As far as the plates they were not PRESENT as a number of LDS Eyewitnesses professed! Emma the first scribe said: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356 Whitmer one of the THREE Witnesses said : "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887, p. 12 "I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He did not use the plates in translation" Whitmer, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300 http://www.irr.org/mit/divination.html#See,%20for [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: You are describing a common hang-up with the BoM, which isnot much of a hang-up since it is simply based upon the presumption thatwhen JS translated the plates, he did so word for word--which may have been OK for most of the passages, but when he came to passages he was familiar with, he did the normal thing which I myself would have done--he just went to the Bible and copied that part, since it translated the same anyway.There are a few minor differences, however--thus far,the Quamran scrolls have verified the differences, or so I have read. Unfortunately, in my last move, I lost track of the reading material to refer you to on that, but if I run across it, I will definitely post it. The Lehi group (you are familiar with this group) had all of the first five books of Moses, plus some of the prophets, Isaiah apparently included, on brass plates.Nephi had to kill Laban, as the story goes, to obtain these plates, with the reasoning being that it was better for one wicked man to die than for a whole nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief. Sounds like a genuine conversation between Nephi and the Spirit of the Lord to me!!! There are many such "genuine" passages in the BoM--may I suggest next time you read it (if ever), you do so with amind set looking for the "genuineness" of the book. Itsincerely is what it says it is. In a message dated 7/24/2005 6:14:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why would you think that the King Jamesquote beloware the words of God? I read the B of M many moons ago. As I remember, I read a passage in that book that was taken from chapters 1-13 of Isaiah of the KJV, italicized words included. Not a positive for this young investigator. JD Start your day with
[TruthTalk] Humanity of Jesus
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]David Miller wrote: But the point is that the spirit and soul can be swept clean, but the physical body must be reckoned dead and is not swept clean until the resurrection. Do you see this? David: I have other things calling my attention right now, but this did not come across very well. What I meant to say is that the flesh is not swept COMPLETELY clean until the resurrection, and this is in contrast to the spirit which is swept clean completely, and the soul which progressively is cleaned as the new spirit takes over. Until later... jt: At one time I would have agreed 100% having beentaught that when the Holy Spirit comes to indwell our human spirit that this is completely cleansed and dependable so we could always rely uponthe leading of our spirit. Certain faith teachers taught this. However I then saw a lot of flaky things going on in charismatic circles where ppl believed this way with never a correction or retraction and this became a cause for stumbling in my life and forothers I know. Ialso learned that born again ppl includingpastors and choir members werein need of spiritual help and had received prayer for deliverance in the past which showed me that I needed to make some adjustments in my own thinking.I've heard all the arguments about whether the devil is on the shoulder in the pew etc. but he is spirit and basically spirit communes with spirit. I then became apparent in the Word of Godthat sanctification involvedspirit as well assoul and body. Actually it was there all the time but the doctrine had blinded my eyes so that I did not see it. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
"Yes John, it is " means that I am right in my stated view above. "But ... " means that you are about to counter your own admission oerhaps. "she istryingto help and ... correct his misbehaviour." means that, in fact, youdid counter yourself. Not much I can say to someone who uses this method of "reasoning." My comments stand as writtenand will be understood by all who are not into "rebuking ministries. Thnaks for you comments, anyway. JD -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. Smithson, JD -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he has been openly accusing so I don't know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is not works it is normal christian living. judyt -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
Kevin Deegan wrote: So as you can see Joe was a MEDIUM a Spirit Channeler The LDS Hymn should be changed to "We thank thee O God for a Warlock" Even the Book of Commandments syas Joe had power with the ROD, he was a diviner. "The gift of working with the rod" (Book of Commandments 7:3) The Book of Mormon was delivered by a Familiar Spirit! Sticking ones face in a hat filled with a "SEER Stone" is nothing more than a Seance What did the SEER see in the stone? Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they say to you, Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter, should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them Leviticus 19:31: Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. http://www.fillthevoid.org/Occult/necromancy.html Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are describing a common hang-up with the BoM, which isnot much of a hang-up since it is simply based upon the presumption thatwhen JS translated the plates, he did so word for word According to some of the EYEWITNESSES, Joe dropped a magical seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. The actual words and letters appeared like MAGIC. As far as the plates they were not PRESENT as a number of LDS Eyewitnesses professed! Emma the first scribe said: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356 Whitmer one of the THREE Witnesses said : "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887, p. 12 "I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He did not use the plates in translation" Whitmer, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300 The above seems obvious to anyone who has been given even discernment 101. Why are so many walking in darkness, thinking they see the light? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused you really are. On many occasions, I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I would make you jealous. I will leave it at that. why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you admitted. Why you did not read them is beyond me. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying jt I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM. Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe. I assume G feels the same. You will disagree, of course.We cannot help but to speak and write out of our theological construct. Your construct includes (apparently) the idea that you can judge a fellow Christian to be a disciple of Satan and that you should tellthem this -- evenfrequently. Ditto for kevin and shields. DM actually does not do this (in my memory) although he might defend others for so writing. The point, here, is that G will speak and write from his passion.He will see associations between your words and what you are that may not be pleasant to you. So what. All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Sladenor Debbie nor Caroline Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan -- being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as an honest response. obedience is not works it is normal christianliving jt "not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by obedience to law." JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness to be honest in his appraisal without accusing either Judy or Linda of being disciples of Satan can be seen as a very commendable action. jt: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying but lately he has been openly accusing so I don't know how you would reach such a consensus JD. Once more - obedience is not works it is normal christian living. judyt -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:03:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD wrote: Judy writes thisYOU ARE ONE WITH THE ACCUSER That sort of tripe is ad hom at its core. Yes, John, it is, but you seem to overlook that she was responding to a personal insult. If a man slugs another man, and the man he slugs then slugs back,is it reallyfair tofocusall our criticism on theman whoslugged backin response to thefirst? I'm not trying to justify her, but help you see that others are provoking her and it would be best if we got to the root of the problem. Ideally, it would be best if we all turned the other cheek, but if that does not happen, we try and stop the root of the problem and then the rest is taken care of as a result. Furthermore, there is actually a big difference in what Judy is saying and that of the initial accuser. It seems to me that Judy is hopingto help the one who is doing the initial accusing to see that he is cooperating with spiritual forces that perhaps he does not mean to be. In other words, she is trying to help him see why he has become an accuser himself and hoping that realization will cause him to correct his misbehavior. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused you really are. On many occasions, I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I would make you jealous. I will leave it at that. jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would get that idea. To each his own. Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you admitted. Why you did not read them is beyond me. jt: Oh! You are calling obedience "manipulation" - what a travesty. We truly are in the last days when men will not endure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of a hat you know. As for Gary -: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM. jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you still call that honest? Where is discernment? Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe. jt: Nobody I know of on TThas been discussing "works salvationism" JD so this is a construct of your own mind. Probably a roll-over from your CofC legalism trauma. Fact is God is and always has been a God of Covenant and his ppl are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Lance has some pie in the sky idea that for us the covenant is unilateral meaning that God does the lot and we just go on our merry way. His doctrine may back this up but the scriptures certainly do not. I assume G feels the same. You will disagree, of course.We cannot help but to speak and write out of our theological construct. Your construct includes (apparently) the idea that you can judge a fellow Christian to be a disciple of Satan and that you should tellthem this -- evenfrequently. Ditto for kevin and shields. jt:: I can discern what comes from your own mouth/keyboard John and recognize the source. Accusation is never a blessing. DM actually does not do this (in my memory) although he might defend others for so writing. The point, here, is that G will speak and write from his passion.He will see associations between your words and what you are that may not be pleasant to you. So what. jt: So why are you defendingGary and his one word comments? It's not good to partake of another man's sin. All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Sladenor Debbie nor Caroline Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan -- being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as an honest response. jt: Why is it offensive to you to realize your mouth can and is being used by the wrong spirit? Jesus said the same to the sons of thunder; he told them they didn't know what spirit they were of. He flat out confronted Peter and said "Get behind me Satan, you savour the things of man rather than the things of God" (my paraphrase). Obedience is not works it is normal christianliving. "not justified by works of law" can only be understood as "not saved by obedience to law." jt: We are saved by obedience to Christ who said "If you love me you will do what I say" -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:28 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 JD David is right, I have been trying to get you to see what you are doing and it is for your/Gary's sake as much as ours because not only doescontinual accusation wear us out- You/Gary will neverreap blessing so long as you are allowing the adversary to use you this way. On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:54:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One additional comment. Your post below justifies Judy's very bad behavior, ignoring the possibility that Gary was hoping that Judy (and then Linda) would see their actions as, in reality, an attempt to manipulate God. jt: We are not entirely stupid JD; why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? "If I do this and that, then I can expect God to do that and this." Such can be considered manipulation -- jt: Not when one has learned to know His ways and walk in them JD. This is where the blessings of obedience happen. God always longed for Israel to want to know His ways but they preferred His acts - only Moses knew them and had the ppl wearing him out night and day wanting him to make spiritual judgments between them. especially when such thinking is not founded in scripture (i.e.works salvation) Now, whether Gary's theological opinion is correct, and I think it is, his willingness
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:46:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No blessing? Judy, such a comment demonstrates just how confused you really are. On many occasions, I have stated that if I were to speak of the many blessings from God, I would make you jealous. I will leave it at that. jt: You wouldn't be making me jealous JD; don't know where you would get that idea. To each his own. Why would you think we are trying to manipulate God? jt My life is absolutely full of blessings from God, Judy. I explained my understanding of manipulation in the posted comments you admitted. Why you did not read them is beyond me. jt: Oh! You are calling obedience "manipulation" - what a travesty. We truly are in the last days when men will not endure sound doctrine. We didn't get the necessity for obedience out of a hat you know. As for Gary -: Honest? Most of the time noone knows what he is saying The travesty, here, is that you beliefve and teach others a gospel that simply does not work. No one argues against obedience. But to say that obedience (doing this right and doing that right) is a cornstone in our salvation is plain old pure false teaching IMO. Such people deny the Spirit of God for others and lead people into a walk that is no different from the core beliefs (on this subject) from the Mormons, the RCC and the JW's.. I assume G's honesty just as surely as I assume yours or DM. jt: What if he is a well-meaning deceived person JD? Would you still call that honest? Where is discernment? What if I have been wrong about YOU !!! To date, I have refused to consider "what if" when it comes to those on this forum.even with our Mormon friends. Please tell me why I should consider you to be honest and Gary to be something else. Works salvationism IS a doctrine of manipulation and is a false teaching. Now, that is what I believe. jt: Nobody I know of on TThas been discussing "works salvationism" JD so this is a construct of your own mind. Do you know why you resist "works salvationists"? Because you know that "works salvationism" is false doctrine. Probably a roll-over from your CofC legalism trauma. Fact is God is and always has been a God of Covenant and his ppl are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Lance has some pie in the sky idea that for us the covenant is unilateral meaning that God does the lot and we just go on our merry way. His doctrine may back this up but the scriptures certainly do not. I am going to start tracking the times when you have answered a question with pure speculation or avoided my questioning (or others) altogether. When the time is right -- you are going to be startled. Your tactic, at that time, will included accussing me of cut and pasteand other such dishonest endeavors -- but that tactic will be considered as I track you and your buds on this action. It will take perhaps six months. I will be fully silent on this -- you all will forget I am doing this and then BAM :-) I assume G feels the same. You will disagree, of course.We cannot help but to speak and write out of our theological construct. Your construct includes (apparently) the idea that you can judge a fellow Christian to be a disciple of Satan and that you should tellthem this -- evenfrequently. Ditto for kevin and shields. jt:: I can discern what comes from your own mouth/keyboard John and recognize the source. Accusation is never ablessing. i DON'T NEED TO DISCERN ANYTHINGIN THIS PRESENT DISTRESS. ALL I NEED TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO READ. If you do not see the source in my life as being the Spirit of God, you and all who agree with you are have nothing to do with God in that consideration. Nothing. And you transgress I don't know how many scriptures - thank God we don;t have to be right to be saved. DM actually does not do this (in my memory) although he might defend others for so writing. The point, here, is that G will speak and write from his passion.He will see associations between your words and what you are that may not be pleasant to you. So what. jt: So why are you defendingGary and his one word comments? It's not good to partake of another man's sin. This last phrase is exactly why I do defend Gary and resist you on this -- sin, Judy. You are ihn serious error on this matter. All on the 'right" do this very thing many times a week. What he nor Bill, nor Lance (when he was with us) nor Sladenor Debbie nor Caroline Wong, or myself have ever placed any of you in the very camp of Satan -- being one with him, motivated by him and hatred for Believers. I prefer G's "harshness" to yours, in this case and accept his response as an honest response. jt: Why is it offensive to you to realize your mouth can and is being used by the wrong spirit? Because such is a lie it is not moment of ignorance on the part of those who claim such, it is a lie. I KNOW WHOM I SERVE, JUDY. No one on this forum would argue that I serve Satan
Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
Blainer: Are you confusing Joseph Smith with God? God was the one quoting scripture when He spoke to Joseph Smith. He (God) is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, is my point. He does not change. In a message dated 7/24/2005 8:17:40 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JSmith was no Jesus. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:44 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Blainerb: Why do you not believe God can use his own words from thescriptures to express his displeasure over a current situation? Jesus often quoted the scriptures to the Jews to makea point. In the book of Matthew, the writer (Matthew) often does much the same thing. A departure from this would have indicated the story was false.
Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
In a message dated 7/25/2005 1:40:28 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to some (who?)of the EYEWITNESSES, Joe dropped a magical seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. The actual words and letters appeared like MAGIC. As far as the plates they were not PRESENT as a number of LDS Eyewitnesses professed! Blainerb: I don't know who your "eyewitnesses" could have been, since Joseph Smith ALWAYS translated with a veil between him and the person recording. The persons recording were mostly either Emma, his wife, or Oliver Cowdery. NOONE even saw the plates he was translating until the eight witnesses were shown them, which was after they were translated. You need to check your history, MR Expert-On-Mormonism.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Bill wrote Jesus knows that his hearers will realize that dead people cannot bury dead people. Hence he knows that they will not be able to take his statement literally; they will have to conclude that the first death is representative of something other than yet similar tothe second death: in other words, they will know it is a metaphor. jt: You sure make something terribly complicated out of one sentence Bill. How would you expect thest ppl to have such a wide ranging overview which includes first and second deaths? Judy, the word "dead" is used twice in Jesus' statement, a first time and a second time: "Follow Me, and let the dead (that's the first time)bury their own dead (and that's the second time)"; hencemy reference to two "deaths," the first one being metaphorical and the second literal. Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill writes:I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined asa similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You arenot dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealingwith some"centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of "centuries old" doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed it down fast. My daughter-in-law has a newly energized hunger for
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this?I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote:I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, and this whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined asa similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You arenot dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealingwith some"centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of "centuries old" doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed it down fast. My daughter-in-law has a newly energized hunger for God and she is asking me about commentaries because we live in a fast food era where we want everything yesterday. However, I hesitate because I don't want to fill that God-given hunger with error thatwill slow her down. Better for her to see it in God's Word. And yes, there is aspiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more than spiritual: those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit. I would like to quote a verse and then ask you a couple questions."Then Jesus said to them, 'A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he
Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'
Blainerb: Here is a closer approximation of the truth regards the translation of the BoM. Kevin's version is, naturally, taken from his favorite anti-Mormon sites. Book of Mormon Translation By Joseph Smith The original manuscript for Helaman 1:15-16 shows how the name "Coriantumr" was first written by Oliver Cowdery phonetically but was then crossed out and spelled correctly on the same line as the translation progressed. Witnesses stated that Joseph Smith spelled the proper names that he translated. by John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone By its own terms, the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient book; yet Joseph Smith knew no ancient languages at the time he dictated this text to his scribes. He and several of his close associates testified that the translation was accomplished "by the gift and power of God" (Hc 1:315; see also DC 1:29; 20:8). Little is known about the translation process itself. Few details can be gleaned from comments made by Joseph's scribes and close associates. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (HC 1:220). Much is known, however, about when and where the work of translation occurred. The events are documented by several independent firsthand witnesses. Joseph Smith first obtained the gold plates at the hill Cumorah in New York, in the early morning hours of September 22, 1827. To avoid local harassment and mobs, he moved to harmony, pennsylvania, in December 1827. There he copied and translated some of the characters from the plates, with his wife Emma and her brother Reuben Hale acting as scribes. In 1856, Emma recalled that Joseph dictated the translation to her word for word, spelled out the proper names, and would correct her scribal errors even though he could not see what she had written. At one point while translating, Joseph was surprised to learn that Jerusalem had walls around it (E. C. Briggs, "Interview with David Whitmer," Saints' Herald 31 [June 21, 1884]:396-97). Emma was once asked in a later interview if Joseph had read from any books or notes while dictating. She answered, "He had neither," and when pressed, added: "If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me" (Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290). Martin Harris came to Harmony in February 1828, and shortly afterward took a transcript and translation of some of the characters to New York City, where he showed them to Professor Charles Anthon at Columbia College (see Anthon Transcript). He returned fully satisfied that Joseph was telling the truth, and from April 12 to June 14, 1828, Harris acted as scribe while Joseph Smith translated the book of Lehi. On June 15, 1828, Joseph and Emma's first son was born but died a few hours later. About July 15, Joseph learned that Martin Harris had lost the 116 pages they had translated (see Manuscript, Lost 116 Pages), and subsequently the angel Moroni took the plates and the interpreters temporarily from Joseph, who was chastened but reassured by the Lord that the work would go forth (DC 3:15-16). On September 22, 1828, the plates and translation tools were returned to Joseph Smith, and during that winter he translated "a few more pages" (DC 5:30). The work progressed slowly until April 5, 1829, when Oliver Cowdery, a school teacher who had seen the Lord and the plates in a vision (PWJS, p. 8), arrived in Harmony and offered his scribal services to Joseph. Virtually all of the English text of the Book of Mormon was then translated between April 7 and the last week of June, less than sixty working days. The dictation flowed smoothly. From the surviving portions of the Original Manuscript it appears that Joseph dictated about a dozen words at a time. Oliver would read those words back for verification, and then they would go on. Emma later added that after a meal or a night's rest, Joseph would begin, without prompting, where he had previously left off (The Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290). No time was taken for research, internal cross-checking, or editorial rewriting. In 1834 Oliver wrote: "These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth as he translated" (Messenger and Advocate 1 [Oct. 1834]:14). During April, May, and June 1829, many events occurred in concert with the translation of the Book of Mormon. By May 15, the account of Christ's ministry in 3 Nephi had been translated. That text explicitly mentions the
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are spiritually dead. That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry from following Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family above Jesus. From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:33:26 -0600 Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote: I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of spiritual death as literally being dead in the spirit. Hence you are both treating your concept as a metaphor, and this whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A spiritually dead person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't get it about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me, If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound. ... It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet. These statements treat spiritual death in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word death or dead supply the metaphor without adding spiritual to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined as a similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here - When He says death he means death and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or soul death). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of spiritual death, which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You are not dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealing with some centuries old doctrine of man Neither of you seem to get it that spiritual death is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you than by those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine? I can't know that you are using it differently, until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using death as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of centuries old doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed it down fast. My daughter-in-law has a newly energized hunger for God and she is asking me about commentaries because we live in a fast food era where we want everything yesterday. However, I hesitate because I don't want to fill that God-given hunger with error that will slow her down. Better for her to see it in God's Word. And yes, there is a spiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Yes -- very good. Could it be that if you are following the way of God in Christ, you are as good as dead, hence "dead." ??-Original Message-From: Bill Taylor wmtaylor@plains.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:32:15 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Bill wrote Jesus knows that his hearers will realize that dead people cannot bury dead people. Hence he knows that they will not be able to take his statement literally; they will have to conclude that the first death is representative of something other than yet similar tothe second death: in other words, they will know it is a metaphor. jt: You sure make something terribly complicated out of one sentence Bill. How would you expect thest ppl to have such a wide ranging overview which includes first and second deaths? Judy, the word "dead" is used twice in Jesus' statement, a first time and a second time: "Follow Me, and let the dead (that's the first time)bury their own dead (and that's the second time)"; hencemy reference to two "deaths," the first one being metaphorical and the second literal. Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill writes:I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined asa similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You arenot dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealingwith some"centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of "centuries old" doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Perry wrote The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are"spiritually dead". That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lorddwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry fromfollowing Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family aboveJesus. Well, this is not exactly what I had in mind, Perry; although, I do agree with your final statement. Would you mind clarifying your opening comments? Is this how you view "spiritual death": those who do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually dead, and those who do have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them are spiritually alive? Was the Spirit of the Lord indwelling Jesus' followers prior to his ascension? What do you think: were those followers spiritually dead, or were they spiritually alive? Are all non-believers spiritually dead -- infants and unborn babies included? What about the mentally retarded: are they spiritually dead, or dothey have the Spirit of God indwelling them? Just curious, Bill - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death The greater message here is that those who choose not to follow Jesus are "spiritually dead". That is, they do not have the Spirit of the Lord dwelling in them. The man he chose as an example wanted to tarry from following Jesus until his father passed away, thus putting his family above Jesus. From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:33:26 -0600 Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote: I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Hence you are both treating your concept as a metaphor, and this whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me, If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound. ... It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet. These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined as a similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here - When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or soul death). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You are not dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealing with some "centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of you seem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you than by those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Who is your choice, Judy - me or G? -Original Message-From: Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:33:26 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death Would someone else please step in and help Judy through this?I would very much appreciate it. Thanks, Bill From: Judy Taylor Bill wrote:I actually don't think we've got that much left to argue about. Both you and Judy have said that you do not think of "spiritual death" as literally being dead in the spirit. Henceyou are both treating your concept as a metaphor, and this whether you realize it or not, and so I don't really have an issue with either of your positions. jt: Why can't we just call life what God calls it and death what God calls it? Why do we have to qualify with all of these advanced linguistics? In response to David's expressed concerns, Judy wrote: This does not mean that their spirit is literally dead or that they are physically dead - it means that if something does not change they will inherit both at the last day. And in response to her, you (Izzy) wrote: A "spiritually dead" person is going to hell when he physically dies. He already doesn't "get it" about things of the Spirit. And you also wrote to me,If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.These statements treat "spiritual death" in a metaphorical sense and not a literal one. jt: Sounds to me as though you are evading the point Bill - what difference does the word make life is life and death is death so far as God is concerned - now what does He mean by this concept? You ask in a separate post what the difference is between us? The difference is this: I let the word "death" or "dead" supply the metaphor without adding "spiritual" to it. You add a word and then treat the two -- spiritual + death -- as a metaphor for something else, as you both explain above. jt: I have a question. What kind of death is God talking about then? In the garden Adam died the day he ate from the wrong tree, yet he lived another 960yrs physically and the whole time he had a working body, a conscious soul, and a spirit (albeit one that had lost communion with God). Since a metaphor is defined asa similitude reduced to a single word - your definition is in error. God is not using similitude or metaphor here- When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? Why do I have a problem with this? Because of that centuries-old doctrine of "spiritual death," which literally does refer to one's spirit as being dead until it is regenerated. jt: You arenot dealing with the truth of scripture then. You are dealingwith some"centuries old doctrine of man" Neither of youseem to "get it" that "spiritual death" is not biblical language; it is a doctrine which speaks to biblical concepts; it is a synthesis, a conclusion. You have picked up on the language of this doctrine, but the concepts that it represents are treated differently by you thanby those who adhere to the classic doctrine. jt: No Bill - You are the one hamstrung by this doctrine. I am not dealing with any such thing and neither is Izzy; the dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around. Yet, how am I to know that this is what you are doing when I see you using the language of that old doctrine?I can't know that you are using it differently,until after I have been through a very long process with you. Why not drop the language and then, when it is necessary, explain your concept by using "death" as the metaphor which speaks to your perceived conclusions? At least this way people will not be so likely to misunderstand you going in. jt: Why would Izzy and I assume that everyone we speak to has a load of "centuries old" doctrines of men to wade through? I had none until I began reading extra biblical stuff and as soon as I saw the conflict with the written word I layed it down fast. My daughter-in-law has a newly energized hunger for God and she is asking me about commentaries because we live in a fast food era where we want everything yesterday. However, I hesitate because I don't want to fill that God-given hunger with error thatwill slow her down. Better for her to see it in God's Word. And yes, there is aspiritual element included in this metaphor, but it is actually quite more than spiritual: those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit. I would like to quote a verse and then ask you a couple questions."Then Jesus said to them, 'A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is
Re: [TruthTalk] your job
First day on job? How goes it.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual death
Mar 12.30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. I told Izzy that I thought there was aspiritual element included in Jesus' statement: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." But I also told her that I thought it was not just directed at the spirit aspect of personhood: "those who reject Christ are doing so with their entire being -- mind, body, soul, and spirit." To which Judy responded with ridicule, implying insteadthatJesus' statement was only in reference to the spiritual aspect, i.e., it was a reference to spiritual death and nothing else.* Judy, if first century Jews prior to the cross were called to love God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength, what do you suppose they were not doing when they refused to follow his Son? Bill * When He says "death" he means "death" and since the death Adam experienced that day was not physical, nor was it alzheimers (brain or souldeath). What do you suppose it was? ... The dead burying their dead is not speaking of physical or soulish death since they were able to dig a hole and had presence of mind enough not to let a dead body just lay around.
