date:20051124

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:07:01 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I don't think they were misled by the passage.  I think they 
  perceived that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and 
  you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove 
  your point.

  This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually 
  discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated.

  You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the 
  educational background to talk on your level about these matters.  We 
  really should not run roughshod over them.  We need to do the translating 
  for them.

  Wait a minute David, this really troubles me.  
  Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem?
  You've mentioned in the past that you think I am 
  against education.  Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is 
  going to work on me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is 
  IMO totally misplaced in the body of Christ and from my experience it has 
  caused no end of problems.  All education can do is give one a 
  historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans 
  questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works since we are 
  still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not 
  good.

  I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has 
  repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being 
  sanctified.  

  My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to 
  both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved, 
  and we will be saved, same for sanctification; and I saw the verse 
  in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and the once for all 
  aspect.  So all we did on that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to 
  do which is to "strive about words to no profit"

  I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the 
  completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers 
  (those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification).  

  Am I missing something David, are there some who 
  are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not 
  others?  This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess 
  5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless 
  and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the 
start.

  Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept.  
  You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she 
  took that position.  I know I just lost you... sorry.  I'm tired and 
  must sign off now.  God bless.

  JD's claim that Kevin and I prove his point is ironic 
  since he and Bill proved the point made earlier about the danger of the newer 
  translations where men feel free to correct God's Word in light of the 
  "supposedly" newer Greek (read Westcott and Hort) manuscripts.

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

No it does not     Perhaps 
this is true in your case.  I am not sure you understand the 
problem,   but I think you do.    Others, clearly, 
do not  and that is my point.    The average reader will 
see this as a completed action. 
Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point.   IN 
THAT REGARD,   this is a poor translation of the 
text.   A much better translation would be as Bill 
suggested,  IMO.   

Jd-Original 
Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48 
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

JD 
wrote:
> The translation presents the reader with a 

> completed task when that is not the 
case. 

No it does not.  The translation is 
present passive.  You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past 
tense.  Nothing in this translation indicates whether our 
sanctification is completed or is still ongoing.  It only 
indicates that we are sanctified at the present time.

Peace.
David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 
  5:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

    -Original Message-From: David 
  Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  JD wrote:
> I think Bill's point  (correct me if I am wrong,
> Bill) is that the KJ translation gives us a past
> tense translation of a present tense participle.
> There is no good reason for doing such and
> in that context, it is a "mist

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




Sorry to have riled you, Judy. I thought my 
comments would be so obviously tongue-in-cheek as to be inoffensive. They 
obviously were not. Hence my apologies,
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:32 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  You are wrong Bill.  I don't think along these 
  lines and since ppl on TT are all professing believers
  (whether or not I think they act/talk like it) 
  I wonder why any one here would categorize 
  another as an 
  idiot/fool in light of 
  Jesus' words about calling a brother 'raca' (or 
  fool).  
   
  As for you, from my perspective every time we get to 
  discussing anything serious, it does not take
  long for Lance to 
  step up to the plate and put some kind of a 'mojo' on you and then you retreat 
  
  back into silence Rush 
  Limbaugh quite obviously does 
  not have the mind of 
  Christ, so I don't
  pay him any mind; he is not a disciple of the same 
  Master. 
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
I am thinking about what you said in regards to 
Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our 
conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my 
mouth and remove all doubt :>) I think this time I'll remain silent and 
only thought a fool.  Bill

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Ah.   Now I see.  Why the 
  race? Well,   i guess I should defer to 
  Bill, although I think I understood the point.    
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  

  
  Do you presume to have finished the race, while 
  waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?   
  and it got a hearty laugh out of my 
  otherwise demonical countenance.  
   
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


RACE.    What is that 
about?how do you 
get a race out this?   I 
remain confused.   -Original 
Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor



I know what you are commenting on JD; 
However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing 
at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 
where this thread began.  Bill 
has gone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to 
do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 
10:14.  The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice 

against the once for 
all sacrifice of Christ.  Now how do you get a race 
out this?  You are lost because you 
are off on the same 
tangent as Bill.  judyt
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am 
  committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing 
  what  ??   This is a great question:  Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for 
  the likes of Paul to catch up?   and it got 
  a hearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical 
  countenance.  
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  

  
  Your drift is incomprehensible JD 
  and there is no "death blow" because FYI
  Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... 
  Oh what a tangled web we weave...
   
  Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: 
  "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come
  to do Your will, O God"  He takes away 
  the first that He may establish the second.  By
  that will we have been sanctified 
  through the offering of the body of Jesus 
  Christ once for all"
   
  So where is this race..
   
   
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  


Not laughting at you , David,  but I am 
laughing at the quetion  !!!   
Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow   
   if you get my drift.   
:-)
 
jd  -Original 
Message-From: Taylor To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 
-0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor



You highlight the problem with 
leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, D

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




You are wrong Bill.  I don't think along these 
lines and since ppl on TT are all professing believers
(whether or not I think they act/talk like it) 
I wonder why any one here would categorize 
another as an 
idiot/fool in light of 
Jesus' words about calling a brother 'raca' (or 
fool).  
 
As for you, from my perspective every time we get to 
discussing anything serious, it does not take
long for Lance to step 
up to the plate and put some kind of a 'mojo' on you and then you retreat 

back into silence Rush 
Limbaugh quite obviously does not have the mind of Christ, so I 
don't
pay him any mind; he is not a disciple of the same 
Master. 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I am thinking about what you said in regards to 
  Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our 
  conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my 
  mouth and remove all doubt :>) I think this time I'll remain silent and 
  only thought a fool.  Bill
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Ah.   Now I see.  Why the 
race? Well,   i guess I should defer to 
Bill, although I think I understood the point.    

 From: Judy Taylor 



Do you presume to have finished the race, while 
waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?   
and it got a hearty laugh out of my otherwise 
demonical countenance.  
 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
  RACE.    What is that 
  about?how do you 
  get a race out this?   I remain 
  confused.   -Original Message-From: 
  Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  

  
  I know what you are commenting on JD; 
  However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing 
  at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 
  where this thread began.  Bill has gone 
  from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to 
  do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 
  10:14.  The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice 
  
  against the once for 
  all sacrifice of Christ.  Now how do you get a race 
  out this?  You are lost because you 
  are off on the same 
  tangent as Bill.  judyt
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  


Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am 
committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what  
??   This is a great question:  Do 
you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of 
Paul to catch up?   and it got a hearty laugh 
out of my otherwise demonical countenance.  
 
 
From: Judy Taylor 



Your drift is incomprehensible JD and 
there is no "death blow" because FYI
Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh 
what a tangled web we weave...
 
Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: 
"Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come
to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the 
first that He may establish the second.  By
that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
all"
 
So where is this race..
 
 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Not laughting at you , David,  but I am laughing 
  at the quetion  !!!   
  Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow   
     if you get my drift.   
:-)
   
  jd  -Original 
  Message-From: Taylor To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 
  -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
  

  
  You highlight the problem with 
  leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; 
  hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you 
  presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul 
  to catch up?
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 
2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our 
sanctification 
> which is not yet 
complete.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




myth 
(absurd)
 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>I do 
not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




..apparently, the 
only man to whom the argument doesn't apply is DavidM
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:32:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  JC appears 
  as human as Bill (and maybe not as happy:)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:26:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
If ..I said, "Jesus is happy."  Would you make the same argument, 
that His happiness is incomplete?
 
||
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 
  9:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  
   
  myth ("Bill 
  is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness 
  is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
  present tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David 
  Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not 
  necessarily indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is happy," 
  this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
  happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




JC appears as 
human as Bill (and maybe not as happy:)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:26:17 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  If ..I said, "Jesus is happy."  Would you make the same argument, 
  that His happiness is incomplete?
   
  ||
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:52 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor


 
myth ("Bill is 
happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is 
transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not necessarily 
indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is happy," this does not 
mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

I am thinking about what you said in regards to 
Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our 
conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my mouth 
and remove all doubt :>) I think this time I'll remain silent and only 
thought a fool.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:28 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  Ah.   Now I see.  Why the race? 
  Well,   i guess I should defer to Bill, although I think I 
  understood the point.     -Original 
  Message-From: Judy Taylor To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:20:48 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

  Do you presume to have finished the race, while 
  waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?   
  and it got a hearty laugh out of my otherwise 
  demonical countenance.  

  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

RACE.    What is that 
about?how do you get 
a race out this?   I remain 
confused.   -Original Message-From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 
24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

I know what you are commenting on JD; 
However, Bill's 
statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do 
with Hebrews 10:14 
where this thread began.  Bill has gone 
from Greek verbs to some race none of which have 
anything to 
do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 
10:14.  The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice 

against the once for all 
sacrifice of Christ.  Now how do you get a race out this?  
You are lost because you 
are off on the same 
tangent as Bill.  judyt

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am committing 
  on Bill's statement below and you are doing what  
  ??   This is a great question:  Do you 
  presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to 
  catch up?   and it got a hearty laugh out of my 
  otherwise demonical countenance.  

  From: Judy Taylor 

  Your drift is incomprehensible JD and 
  there is no "death blow" because FYI
  Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh 
  what a tangled web we weave...

  Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: 
  "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come
  to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the 
  first that He may establish the second.  By
  that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
  all"

  So where is this race..

  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Not laughting at you , David,  but I am laughing at 
the quetion  !!!   
Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow   
   if you get my drift.   :-)

jd  -Original 
Message-From: Taylor To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 
-0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

You highlight the problem with leaving 
off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing 
track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have 
finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch 
up?

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 
  6:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  Bill wrote:
  > Per this verse, it is our 
  sanctification 
  > which is not yet 
  complete.

  How do you read this into the text?  
  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is 
  somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, 
  but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going 
  beyond what is indicated by this text.

  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 
2005 8:

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




I wrote: I include "themselves" here because 
there is no other object to receive the action of the verb: 
sanctification.
 
DM  >  Sanctification / Sanctified is 
NOT the verb.  Maybe this is what is causing some of the confusion 
here.
 
My apologies, David, I did not mean to imply that 
the word sanctification is a verb, although I can see how you could conclude 
that this is what I was stating. I meant to convey the idea that sanctification 
is what the verb is about; it is what the subject is producing in its 
(in this instance, his) recipients.
 
DM  >  The KJV translates the passage 
in present tense, not past tense.  It does not indicate that our 
sanctification is complete or not complete.  It only indicates that we are 
sanctified.  Do we agree on this?
 
Well, not exactly, David -- but I appreciate 
what you have done to crystallize my thinking here. While yours is a possible 
reading, it is not a necessary reading, and as such the KJ translation is not 
here as definite as it ought to be in order to be considered a very "good" 
translation. Let me explain.
 
In English the verb "are," when used with a 
participle, performs a linking function, but it does not necessarily 
express voice; i.e, it may also be functioning exclusively as a descriptive 
(those who "are sanctified," the action being complete).* And so when used 
by itself, "are" is syntactically ambiguous: it 
could be a passive auxiliary or merely a verb of status, and this 
because there is nothing definite to force it to go one way or the other. 

 
In order to resolve the ambiguity, definition must 
be provided by adding another "be" verb (cf. "are being") which also makes 
the verb progressive (e.g., We are being sanctified as opposed to 
We are sanctified), and it is only now that the verb can be construed 
as a distinct passive -- not descriptive; hence two semantic effects are 
accomplish by the one syntactic change: forcing a passive interpretation, 
and adding a progressive aspect. This, in my opinion, is what is 
taking place in the Greek, where the participle hagiazomenous is definitely passive as 
well as progressively present (unless, as I demonstrated yesterday, you want to 
argue for a middle voice, which would also need to be translated in a way which 
would convey definition). And so, my conclusion is this: the present tense thrust of this participle needs to be 
extended beyond a mere linking verb if it is to convey a 
definite passive voice in a present progressive state; 
therefore it needs to read "those who are being sanctified." And so, my criticism remains the same: 'A cursory reading 
of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected" are 
those whose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," 
aren't they?' 
 
But, David, I am ready to leave off on this 
discussion, as I can tell that it has become too complex to be helpful to the 
average Joe -- or Dean or Terry :>) so I hope that you will consider these 
distinctions, and maybe begin to see the reasons for my concern. 
God bless you and yours,
 
Bill
 
*I want to acknowledge Debbie for her contribution, 
via a sidebar exchange, in communicating these rather difficult 
concepts.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




myth (biblical 
language ain't the source of this dualism)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:02:00 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  ||
   ..to be set apart..as we live and move in him
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor





and, as noted, 
you're way more Christian than Christ
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>I do 
not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.

Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?





 RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences

DAVEH:   Do you suppose CPL will know anything about them,
Dean!?!?!?!  ;-) 

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  cd: Where is our monitor? Charles?
   
  
Subject:
RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences




Hardly. J 
 



From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday,
November 24, 2005 12:16 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk]
Izzy's Sexual Experiences

 
You know
I'll tell!

DAVEH:   Wow Izzy..I am rather surprised to hear you say that!  
But it is nice to know you are not so hypocritical that you would not
be willing to post on TT such personal things as you expect me to
share.   Now that I think about it Izzy, I'm sure it would be much more
interesting for TTers to hear about your sexual experiences than mine. 
Do tell! :-[ 

ShieldsFamily wrote: 
You know
I'll tell! :-) 
 


 
DAVEH:  Do you really think it
is appropriate to discuss such personal things on a public forum that
is known for its lack of taste at times?  If you really want to know
the answer to personal questions such as that, contact me off-Forum and
I'll answer your question.

ShieldsFamily wrote: 
So DO you???

 


 
I’ve
read that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too.

DAVEH:   That is not my understanding, nor would I think anybody else
(LDS) understands it that way.  Howeverit is not a topic I've
discussed with others, nor have I ever heard it discussed in any LDS
meetings I've attended or in other official discussions.

    There are numerous instances where it is not appropriate to wear
them, viz., playing basketball, swimming, etc.

ShieldsFamily wrote: 
How
about during sex, DaveH? I’ve read
that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too.  True or
false? izzy




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Dave
Hansen
Sent: Wednesday,
November 23, 2005 1:31 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!


The
Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them
to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time.

DAVEH:   Hmmm.I continue to learn by my presence on TT.  
That's one I haven't tried yet, Dean!    :-D 

    Note to Perry:   Like I said, I'm here to learn what Protestants
(and Dean, if he isn't a P) believe.  If nothing else, learning that
you folks believe such things as this is a constant form of
entertainment!   :-) 

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  
  
  Just asking 
---   who said anything about being drunk?   I mean, you guys wave
men's underwear
around , so why not chew.  Whatever.  
  
  
  cd:
You had mentioned me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the
Mormons claim that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal
Melchizedek Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not
worthy to view these holy objects-They are easy to obtain for the local
pawn shops as many are getting rid of them. We hold them up and declare
that true holiness is to live by the gospel of Christ which is an inner
cleanliness not an outer cleanliness. The Mormons have to leave
them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash
one half of their bodies at a time.
  
  
  


  




-- 
 ~~~
 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] corrector/revisor

I don't think they were misled by the passage.  I think they perceived 
that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and you were 
trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove your 
point.

You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the 
educational background to talk on your level about these matters.  We 
really should not run roughshod over them.  We need to do the translating 
for them.

I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has 
repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being sanctified.  
I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the 
completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers 
(those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification).  Yet in this 
matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept.  You shook your head 
in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she took that 
position.  I know I just lost you... sorry.  I'm tired and must sign 
off now.  God bless.

David M.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:40 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  No it does not     Perhaps this is true in your 
  case.  I am not sure you understand the problem,   but I think 
  you do.    Others, clearly, do not  and that is my 
  point.    The average reader will see this as a completed 
  action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and 
  prove my point.   IN THAT REGARD,   this is a poor 
  translation of the text.   A much better translation would be as 
  Bill suggested,  IMO.   

  Jd-Original 
  Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

  JD 
  wrote:
  > The translation presents the reader with a 

  > completed task when that is not the 
  case. 

  No it does not.  The translation is 
  present passive.  You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past 
  tense.  Nothing in this translation indicates whether our sanctification 
  is completed or is still ongoing.  It only indicates that we are 
  sanctified at the present time.

  Peace.
  David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:42 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

  -Original Message-From: David Miller 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

JD wrote:
> I think Bill's point  (correct me if I am wrong,
> Bill) is that the KJ translation gives us a past
> tense translation of a present tense participle.
> There is no good reason for doing such and
> in that context, it is a "mistake."

I did not understand Bill this way, but if that is what he is saying, he 
would be wrong.  The phrase "are sanctified" is not past tense.  The syntax 
of "sanctified" looks like a past tense construction, but it is simply a 
participle construction of the verb "sanctify" that looks the same as the 
past tense form of the verb.  The tense of the verb is present tense, as 
indicated by the word "are."  If it were past tense, the phrase would be 
"were sanctified" not "are sanctified."  The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case.  

JD wrote:
> In the English, this past tense translation circumvents
> ENTIRELY the impact of  sanctification  as ongoing
> event by another in our lives.

It would only be your own personal reading of "are sanctified" that would 
circumvent ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as an ongoing event.  The 
phrase is present tense, and hence it does not circumvent anything of the 
sort.  Your confusion in the first paragraph would seem to prove my point.   

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Thanksgiving Proclamation

2005-11-24 Thread ShieldsFamily




 
 


George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation 

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the 
providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, 
and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of 
Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the 
people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be 
observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of 
Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish 
a form of government for their safety and happiness:" 
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November 
next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great 
and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that 
is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our 
sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this 
country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies 
and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion 
of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we 
have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been 
enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, 
and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and 
religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring 
and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various 
favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. 
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and 
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon 
our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or 
private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and 
punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by 
constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly 
and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and 
nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with 
good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of 
true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, 
generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He 
alone knows to be best. 
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 
1789. 
 
G. Washington (his actual signature) 


NOTE: 
Shortly after the Thanksgiving Proclamation was written, it was lost for 130 
years. The original document was written in long hand by William Jackson, 
secretary to the President, and was then signed by George Washington. It was 
probably misplaced or mixed in with some private papers when the US capitol 
moved from New York to Washington, D.C. The original manuscript was not placed 
in the National Archives until 1921 when Dr. J. C. Fitzpatrick, assistant chief 
of the manuscripts division of the Library of Congress found the proclamation at 
an auction sale being held at an art gallery in New York. Dr Fitzpatrick 
purchased the document for $300.00 for the Library of Congress, in which it now 
resides. It was the first official presidential proclamation issued in the 
United States. 


Return to Thanksgiving Story 


This page courtesy of Maurice Smith

[TruthTalk] Thanksgiving

2005-11-24 Thread ShieldsFamily





Proclamation of ThanksgivingWashington, 
D.C.October 3, 1863 
By the President of the United States of America. 
A Proclamation. 
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the 
blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are 
so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they 
come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they 
cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually 
insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a 
civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to 
foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been 
preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been 
respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre 
of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the 
advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of 
strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not 
arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders 
of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious 
metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has 
steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, 
the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness 
of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years 
with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any 
mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the 
Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath 
nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they 
should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and 
one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens 
in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who 
are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of 
November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who 
dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the 
ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they 
do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, 
commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners 
or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, 
and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds 
of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine 
purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union. 
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the 
United States to be affixed. 
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the 
Unites States the Eighty-eighth. 
By the President: Abraham Lincoln

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

I liked Dean's analogy of a house.  A house is complete and ready to 
live in, but it also can be fixed up more and expanded and maintained.  

The Bible teaches us that Jesus never sinned.  He was completely 
sanctified even as a child, but the Bible teaches that he grew in wisdom and 
stature, and that he learned obedience by the things which he suffered.  

I guess the bottom line is that you view sanctification as the process of 
being made a better person.  I don't.  I view sanctification as being 
set apart, something that is completed when we believe in Jesus Christ.  
However, we continue to grow, and we continue to be set apart (sanctified) as we 
live and move in him.

Peace be with you.David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:45 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  David  --  I do not understand your logic here.   If 
  you admit that our sanctification is ongoing  -  how could you 
  possibly argue that it is, at the same time,  
   completed?   "I am being made a better person"  
  presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to 
  me.   Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?"  

  Jd  -Original 
  Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:56:58 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

  Bill wrote:
  > Per this verse, it is our sanctification 

  > which is not yet complete.

  How do you read this into the text?  Nothing 
  in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow 
  incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue 
  that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is 
  indicated by this text.

  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a 
prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person 
singular aspect of teteleioken 
conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree 
with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to 
understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead 
you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per 
this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't 
expect you to understand that either.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 
  11:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING 
  so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in 
my understanding the active part of 
sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; 
the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor"  writes:

  That's fine, Judy, but who in this 
  discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to 
  set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that 
  this participle in Heb 10.14 
  reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is 
  being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet 
  complete?  Bill

From: Judy 
Taylor 

I have no idea what you are talking about 
Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance 
means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set 
apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is 
"set apart in the sense that she is become the object of 

focus because of the faith and influence of 
her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified in any other sense because she 
remains unregenerated and dead 
in her trespass and
sin.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor"  
writes:

  Fair enough. Do you accept the 
  present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do 
  not.

  Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!




Ooops!  I transposed my numbers in talking about this.  I think 
many linger too much toward verse 5, and perceive Bill & DaveH to be better 
at hanging toward verse 4, but would be better sometimes to move toward 5.  
Sorry for the confusion.
 
Let me put it in plain language.  Bill & Dave tend to be more 
reserved about answering.  I tend to have the opposite problem.  I 
often look like the fool in my desire not to let the fool be wise in his own 
conceit.  I think that I'm getting better at not doing that quite so much, 
but here yet again, in answering Lance, I kind of look foolish in transposing my 
numbers!
 
David M.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:01 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn 
  Questionere!
  
  Can you flesh this out more?David Miller 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  Lance 
wrote:> What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which> I was 
getting at re: your visit to 'the campus'.> ...> IMO, this 
'conversation' falls into the same> category as so many 'exchanges' 
do on TT.> Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter> 
whilst imbedding their comments ... with> inflammatory 
language.The following passage teaches moderation and artistry in 
how we answer foolish people:Proverbs 26:4-5(4) Answer not a 
fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.(5) 
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own 
conceit.>From my perspective, many on TT have a tendency to 
linger too much under verse 4 rather than verse 5. Some people on the 
list, like Bill Taylor and Dave Hansen, are better at hanging closer to 
verse 5, except many times, I think they would do better to fall back 
toward verse 4. In the end, where we hang our hat on these verses 
effects our fruit, and Jesus Christ will judge us accordingly. Let each 
man give account of himself to Christ alone, according to his own 
conscience, and let us be careful not to judge another man's servant. 
I'm satisfied to walk by this rule.Peace be with you.David 
Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, 
seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to 
receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell 
him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be 
subscribed.
  
  
  Yahoo! 
  Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it 
free.

RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences-Charles?

cd: Where is our monitor? Charles?

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/24/2005 10:16:54 PM 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences

Hardly. J 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:16 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences

You know I'll tell!DAVEH:   Wow Izzy..I am rather surprised to hear you say that!   But it is nice to know you are not so hypocritical that you would not be willing to post on TT such personal things as you expect me to share.   Now that I think about it Izzy, I'm sure it would be much more interesting for TTers to hear about your sexual experiences than mine.  Do tell! :-[ ShieldsFamily wrote: 
You know I'll tell! :-) 

DAVEH:  Do you really think it is appropriate to discuss such personal things on a public forum that is known for its lack of taste at times?  If you really want to know the answer to personal questions such as that, contact me off-Forum and I'll answer your question.ShieldsFamily wrote: 
So DO you??? 

Ive read that youre supposed to leave them on then, too.DAVEH:   That is not my understanding, nor would I think anybody else (LDS) understands it that way.  Howeverit is not a topic I've discussed with others, nor have I ever heard it discussed in any LDS meetings I've attended or in other official discussions.    There are numerous instances where it is not appropriate to wear them, viz., playing basketball, swimming, etc.ShieldsFamily wrote: 
How about during sex, DaveH? Ive read that youre supposed to leave them on then, too.  True or false? izzy

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:31 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
The Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time.DAVEH:   Hmmm.I continue to learn by my presence on TT.   That's one I haven't tried yet, Dean!    :-D     Note to Perry:   Like I said, I'm here to learn what Protestants (and Dean, if he isn't a P) believe.  If nothing else, learning that you folks believe such things as this is a constant form of entertainment!   :-) Dean Moore wrote: 

Just asking  ---   who said anything about being drunk?   I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why not chew.  Whatever.  

cd: You had mentioned me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to view these holy objects-They are easy to obtain for the local pawn shops as many are getting rid of them. We hold them up and declare that true holiness is to live by the gospel of Christ which is an inner cleanliness not an outer cleanliness. The Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time.  
--  ~~~ 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] Results of Questionere

CD: The question ere I sent out last week got good results from most of the group. It was designed to help me understand how much Calvinism has influenced our pure religion-and view the results of the Mormons in this area. The belief behind this test has beginnings with Augustine of Hippo(354-430) who was the fathers of the RCC and later debated and picked up as a belief at the Synod of Dort by John Calvin (1509-1564)-more popular referred as the TULIP-Five points of Calninism.Jame Arminius (1506-16090) Was one of the major obstacle to this belief but died before the debate at the Synod of Dort and as the deck was stacked against them -His followers lost the debate. This in turn cause this false belief to flourish and lead to the deaths of many of the followers of Arminius,AnaBaptist,Reformers...etc ( note: Christians in the Bible were persecuted for their beliefs not one harmed other for adherence to a different belief). The Dutch baptist was one of the groups to promote Calvinism. If there are any w
ho answer contrary to the answers I am giving then you need to review the bible and change your understanding of God's instructions and He was not a Calvinist-as you are teaching/preaching another gospel then the one delivered to the saints. I have found that most of the baptist church agree completely, and now some Wesleyans churches agree in part, with Calvinism.
1.Total Depravity-After the fall man is totally unable to fulfill the law of God or to search for God on his own. Here Calvinist and Arminians agree.
2.Uncondition elect-Calvins believe that God chooses for salvation who he wants. Armininians believe that God chooses who He foresaw that will believe in Jesus Christ.
3.Limited Atoinment-Calvins believe that Christ died only for the elect. Arminians believe that Christ died for all people.
4. Irresistible grace-Calvinists believe that God leads people to faith through the irresistible force of grace. Arminians believe that the grace of God can be resisted.
5. Preservation of the saints-Calvinists believe that for saints who are the elect it is impossible to fall from grace. Arminians say it is possible to fall from grace.
What are you?

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!





DAVEH:   Which begs the question..To which category do you think you
belong, DavidM?

    And.I'm rather curious about why you feel that it might be
better for Bill and me to fall back toward vs 4 more often?  Was not my
response to Izzy about her sexual experiences much more entertaining
than had I simply ignored her previous comment to me!  :-) 

David Miller wrote:

  
The following passage teaches moderation and artistry in how we answer 
foolish people:

Proverbs 26:4-5
(4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto 
him.
(5) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own 
conceit.

>From my perspective, many on TT have a tendency to linger too much under 
verse 4 rather than verse 5.  Some people on the list, like Bill Taylor and 
Dave Hansen, are better at hanging closer to verse 5, except many times, I 
think they would do better to fall back toward verse 4.  In the end, where 
we hang our hat on these verses effects our fruit, and Jesus Christ will 
judge us accordingly.  Let each man give account of himself to Christ alone, 
according to his own conscience, and let us be careful not to judge another 
man's servant.  I'm satisfied to walk by this rule.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

RE: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences

2005-11-24 Thread ShieldsFamily









Hardly. J 

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005
12:16 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual
Experiences



 

You know I'll tell!

DAVEH:   Wow Izzy..I am rather surprised to hear you say that!
  But it is nice to know you are not so hypocritical that you would not be
willing to post on TT such personal things as you expect me to share.  
Now that I think about it Izzy, I'm sure it would be much more interesting for
TTers to hear about your sexual experiences than mine.  Do
tell!
:-[ 

ShieldsFamily wrote: 

You know I'll tell! :-) 

 







 

DAVEH:  Do you really think it is appropriate to
discuss such personal things on a public forum that is known for its lack of
taste at times?  If you really want to know the answer to personal
questions such as that, contact me off-Forum and I'll answer your question.

ShieldsFamily wrote: 

So DO you??? 

 







 

I’ve
read that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too.

DAVEH:   That is not my understanding, nor would I think anybody else
(LDS) understands it that way.  Howeverit is not a topic I've
discussed with others, nor have I ever heard it discussed in any LDS meetings
I've attended or in other official discussions.

    There are numerous instances where it is not appropriate to
wear them, viz., playing basketball, swimming, etc.

ShieldsFamily wrote: 

How about during sex, DaveH? I’ve read that you’re supposed to leave
them on then, too.  True or false? izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
1:31 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another
darn Questionere!





The Mormons have to leave them on even
while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash one half of their
bodies at a time.

DAVEH:   Hmmm.I continue to learn by my presence on
TT.   That's one I haven't tried yet,
Dean!    :-D 

    Note to Perry:   Like I said, I'm here to learn
what Protestants (and Dean, if he isn't a P) believe.  If nothing else,
learning that you folks believe such things as this is a constant form of
entertainment!   :-)


Dean Moore wrote: 









Just asking 
---   who said anything about being drunk?   I mean,
you guys wave men's underwear
around , so why not chew.  Whatever.  





cd: You had mentioned
me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim
that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek Priesthood which
is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to view these holy
objects-They are easy to obtain for the local pawn shops as many are getting
rid of them. We hold them up and declare that true holiness is to live by the
gospel of Christ which is an inner cleanliness not an outer cleanliness. The
Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one
side and wash one half of their bodies at a time.









  





--  ~~~ 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] corrector/revisor

  cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children     The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult  There is no final authority but God.     Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.     Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.     There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals) which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.     However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary
 trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).     So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).     So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.     The most inaccurate
 translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.     But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
 cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway.> [Original Message]> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor>> Bill wrote:> > You highlight the
 problem with leaving off the> > present passive aspect of this participle, David;>> I have not left off the present passive aspect. In English, we don't > conjugate the participle this way, but the phrase is clear enough forthose > of us who understand English. It carries over the present tense andpassive > voice just fine.>> Bill wrote:> > hence loosing track of the unfinished- or> > incompleteness of it.>> You are reading to much into first year textbook definitions, Bill. I > expect more from you.>> Bill wrote:> > Do you presume to have finished the race,> > while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?>> No, of course not. My comments to Judy make this clear, and illustratewhy > this thread is so ridiculous. I agree with you about the reality that > sanctification is an ongoing process. My comments to you
 concerned the > exegesis of this one passage. Your question to me here misses my point > entirely. Regardless of how I answer your question (and you already knowmy > answer from past posts), the text you exegete is uneffected by theanswer. > In other words, your question is irrelevant, so why waste the time asking > it?>> Present tense passive voice in English is the same as present tensepassive > voice in Greek. Why are you trying to make out like it is something > different? It almost seems like you are presenting a situation whereyou, > as a student of Greek, have personal private knowledge that others lack. Do > you really think they are handicapped in understa

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

Can you flesh this out more?David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Lance wrote:> What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which> I was getting at re: your visit to 'the campus'.> ...> IMO, this 'conversation' falls into the same> category as so many 'exchanges' do on TT.> Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter> whilst imbedding their comments ... with> inflammatory language.The following passage teaches moderation and artistry in how we answer foolish people:Proverbs 26:4-5(4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.(5) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.>From my perspective, many on TT have a tendency to linger too much under verse 4 rather than
 verse 5. Some people on the list, like Bill Taylor and Dave Hansen, are better at hanging closer to verse 5, except many times, I think they would do better to fall back toward verse 4. In the end, where we hang our hat on these verses effects our fruit, and Jesus Christ will judge us accordingly. Let each man give account of himself to Christ alone, according to his own conscience, and let us be careful not to judge another man's servant. I'm satisfied to walk by this rule.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
 subscribed.
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Amazing those that argue against JD, always just end up proving his point in his mind.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:No it does not Perhaps this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly, do not and that is my point. The average reader will see this as a completed action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point. IN THAT REGARD, this is a poor translation of the text. A much better translation would be as Bill suggested, IMO. Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote: > The translation presents the reader with a > completed task when that is not the case. No it does not. The translation is present passive. You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past tense. Nothing in this translation indicates whether our sanctification is completed or is still ongoing. It only indicates that we are sanctified at the present time. Peace. David Miller.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor -Original
Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor JD wrote: > I think Bill's point (correct me if I am wrong, > Bill) is that the KJ translation gives us a past > tense translation of a present tense participle. > There is no good reason for doing such and > in that context, it is a "mistake."I did not understand Bill this way, but if that is what he is saying, he
would be wrong. The phrase "are sanctified" is not past tense. The syntax of "sanctified" looks like a past tense construction, but it is simply a participle construction of the verb "sanctify" that looks the same as the past tense form of the verb. The tense of the verb is present tense, as indicated by the word "are." If it were past tense, the phrase would be "were sanctified" not "are sanctified." The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case. JD wrote: > In the English, this past tense translation circumvents > ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as ongoing > event by another in our lives.It would only be your own personal reading of "are sanctified" that would circumvent ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as an ongoing event. The phrase is present tense, and hence it does not circumvent anything of the sort.
Your confusion in the first paragraph would seem to prove my point. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/24/2005 3:45:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

David  --  I do not understand your logic here.   If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing  -  how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time,   completed?   "I am being made a better person"  presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me.   Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?"  

Jd 

cd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside ofGod's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional room is added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place. -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:56:58 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification 
> which is not yet complete.

How do you read this into the text?  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor"  writes:

That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

I have no idea what you are talking about Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of 
focus because of the faith and influence of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified in any other sense because she remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and
sin.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor"  writes:

Fair enough. Do you accept the present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do not.

Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

Are you living in some kind of delusion Bill?
My understanding of that text remains the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality here
rather than presumption.  jt
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor







David Miller wrote:

  DaveH wrote:
  
  
As you've pointed out before, the punctuation
can have a big effect on the meaning.is it not
the translator who determines the punctuation?
And if so, then are we not left to wonder/hope/
presume he was duly inspired at the time he put
his spin on the Message?

  
  
I think your Mormon bias is showing.  :-)
  

DAVEH:  It always does!    (And I've never failed to admit it.I
just wonder if those I chat with recognize their own.)    :-) 

  
Why assume that he must be inspired in order to place the proper 
punctuation? 

DAVEH:  You are right DavidM.sometimes it can be accomplished with
scholarship, and failing that a good guess may even be right at
times.  

   All that would be needed is a good knowledge of both 
languages. 

DAVEH:  Even having that.the translator cannot read the mind of the
author.

   Nevertheless, a little inspiration might not hurt.  :-)
  

DAVEH:   I take my last comment back.  With inspiration, the
translator can read the mind of the author.     :-) 

  
Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and English
languages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B of
this room are concerned about the  present tense and passive voices of a
dead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there to
help them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wise
and gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instruct
one to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if the
heart is true to the  intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see it
anyway.


> [Original Message]
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
>
> Bill wrote:
> > You highlight the problem with leaving off the
> > present passive aspect of this participle, David;
>
> I have not left off the present passive aspect.  In English, we don't 
> conjugate the participle this way, but the phrase is clear enough for
those 
> of us who understand English.  It carries over the present tense and
passive 
> voice just fine.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > hence loosing track of the unfinished- or
> > incompleteness of it.
>
> You are reading to much into first year textbook definitions, Bill.  I 
> expect more from you.
>
> Bill wrote:
> > Do you presume to have finished the race,
> > while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?
>
> No, of course not.  My comments to Judy make this clear, and illustrate
why 
> this thread is so ridiculous.  I agree with you about the reality that 
> sanctification is an ongoing process.  My comments to you concerned the 
> exegesis of this one passage.  Your question to me here misses my point 
> entirely.  Regardless of how I answer your question (and you already know
my 
> answer from past posts), the text you exegete is uneffected by the
answer. 
> In other words, your question is irrelevant, so why waste the time asking 
> it?
>
> Present tense passive voice in English is the same as present tense
passive 
> voice in Greek.  Why are you trying to make out like it is something 
> different?  It almost seems like you are presenting a situation where
you, 
> as a student of Greek, have personal private knowledge that others lack. 
Do 
> you really think they are handicapped in understanding this passage
because 
> of their lack of formal education in the Greek language?
>
> 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] corrector/revisor

DaveH wrote:
> As you've pointed out before, the punctuation
> can have a big effect on the meaning.is it not
> the translator who determines the punctuation?
> And if so, then are we not left to wonder/hope/
> presume he was duly inspired at the time he put
> his spin on the Message?

I think your Mormon bias is showing.  :-)

Why assume that he must be inspired in order to place the proper 
punctuation?  All that would be needed is a good knowledge of both 
languages.  Nevertheless, a little inspiration might not hurt.  :-)

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Gary wrote:
> ... the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now]
> which also squares with human experience;

Speak for yourself, Gary.  My sanctification is complete, yet also ongoing. 
I don't expect you will understand.  I do not live by human experience, but 
by the Word of God.  I count my human experience as dung.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> You highlight the problem with leaving off the
> present passive aspect of this participle, David;

I have not left off the present passive aspect.  In English, we don't 
conjugate the participle this way, but the phrase is clear enough for those 
of us who understand English.  It carries over the present tense and passive 
voice just fine.

Bill wrote:
> hence loosing track of the unfinished- or
> incompleteness of it.

You are reading to much into first year textbook definitions, Bill.  I 
expect more from you.

Bill wrote:
> Do you presume to have finished the race,
> while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

No, of course not.  My comments to Judy make this clear, and illustrate why 
this thread is so ridiculous.  I agree with you about the reality that 
sanctification is an ongoing process.  My comments to you concerned the 
exegesis of this one passage.  Your question to me here misses my point 
entirely.  Regardless of how I answer your question (and you already know my 
answer from past posts), the text you exegete is uneffected by the answer. 
In other words, your question is irrelevant, so why waste the time asking 
it?

Present tense passive voice in English is the same as present tense passive 
voice in Greek.  Why are you trying to make out like it is something 
different?  It almost seems like you are presenting a situation where you, 
as a student of Greek, have personal private knowledge that others lack.  Do 
you really think they are handicapped in understanding this passage because 
of their lack of formal education in the Greek language?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




If Bill's happiness were transitory, then you would be right, but it is 
possible that his happiness is found in eternal life, and if that were so, 
then it would not be transitory.  The point is that we do not know 
from the statement whether his happiness is complete or not.
 
Suppose I said, "Jesus is happy."  Would you make the same argument, 
that His happiness is incomplete?
 
Peace be with you.David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:52 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  
   
  myth ("Bill is 
  happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is 
  transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
  tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David Miller" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:||> Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete 
  action.  > "Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is 
  incomplete in his > 
happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor






Matthew 11:29-30(29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn 
of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your 
souls.(30) For my yoke 
is easy, and my 
burden is light.
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:37 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
   
  myth (the options 
  are false; the writer's elimination of difficulty is 
  revealing)
  


||


 
ShieldsFamily wrote: 
||
 We 
can also choose to remain in the state of perfection forever by faith, or we 
can choose to walk like the world again.  This is not 
difficult..

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 14

Judy wrote:
> I pointed out to you that "weak and wrong" are 
> not one and the same.  A baby believer is weak 
> but they will get stronger as they feed on God's 
> Word and grow so it is wrong to judge them or 
> to put a stumbling block in their path.  It is also 
> wrong to use this one incident as the text covering 
> ALL judgment for All time.

Very good point, Judy.  Thanks for stimulating my mind!

Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!




I have to disagree with one thing you said, Terry.  I MISS 
DEBBIE!  :-)
 
Peace be with you.David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:00 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn 
  Questionere!
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  

How can one person be so consistantly 
wrong?  Do you make these idiotic statements just to get 
attention?  No one misses Debbie or Jonathan.  No one understands 
G.  John doesn't quite know what he believes and Bill has no ability to 
communicate with anyone who does not have umpteen degrees.   All 
in all, you are a real flaky bunch.  The temptation is to suggest that 
you all go somewhere and form your own self admiration society, but 
then I have to remember that God says to love you anyway, so hang 
around.  Maybe we can work it 
  out.TerryTo David Miller: 
  
 
What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which 
I was getting at re: your visit to 'the campus'. I suspect you already 
know that as we've spoken of it previously. 
 
IMO, this 'conversation' falls into the same 
category as so many 'exchanges' do on TT. Persons just share polarized 
opinions of a matter whilst imbedding their comments (I'm not referring to 
you here, John) with inflammatory language. I once employed the subject 'my 
theology can beat up your theology'. Much of TT is comprised of 'schoolyard' 
language.
 
On the other hand, 'G' possesses the 'gift of 
concision' ; Bill is an exegete/theologian of the first order, the 'bishop' 
exemplifies thoughtful passion, while 'the David' illustrates the 
limitations of an extremely smart/talented self-taught person. (Too bad 
we've lost the likes of Jonathan, Caroline & 
  Debbie)

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

Lance wrote:
> What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which
> I was getting at re: your visit to 'the campus'.
> ...
> IMO, this 'conversation' falls into the same
> category as so many 'exchanges' do on TT.
> Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter
> whilst imbedding their comments ... with
> inflammatory language.

The following passage teaches moderation and artistry in how we answer 
foolish people:

Proverbs 26:4-5
(4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto 
him.
(5) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own 
conceit.

>From my perspective, many on TT have a tendency to linger too much under 
verse 4 rather than verse 5.  Some people on the list, like Bill Taylor and 
Dave Hansen, are better at hanging closer to verse 5, except many times, I 
think they would do better to fall back toward verse 4.  In the end, where 
we hang our hat on these verses effects our fruit, and Jesus Christ will 
judge us accordingly.  Let each man give account of himself to Christ alone, 
according to his own conscience, and let us be careful not to judge another 
man's servant.  I'm satisfied to walk by this rule.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

I was taught, in first year greek ,  that a present tense verb gives us activity "with no end in sight."  The conclusion or end of Bill's happiness is not in view with a present tense verb.     -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Sure, a present tense verb conveys an action that
> is not yet complete; in other words, it is not yet a
> past tense. As I said before, it is unfortunate that
> the KJV misled you here, understandable though
> it may be, but now you need to move on to accepting
> that the original language posits this participle as a
> present passive.

Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete action.  If I say, 
"Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his 
happiness.

The KJV translates the Heb. 10:14 passage as "are sanctified," which is a 
present passive construction, just like the Greek.  It has not misled 
anyone.  It is the reader who might be misled by whatever he reads into the 
syntax used.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/24/2005 1:55:32 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/24/2005 10:26:10 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your own." 

cd: On this I can agree as to stand upon ones own is to face a beast of terrible power with no defense-surly this beast would prevail.

Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  
cd: But there is an action done by God as shown in v28 ...God gave them over to a reprobate mind-how does this become " not active"?    It is "passive" in  that God did not give them a reprobate mind  -   they got it the old fashioned way  --  they earned it.   God "giving them over to a reprobate mind" does not mean that God did something to them IN ADDITION to what they had done to themselves.  Mine is a theological consideration  (call it a bias if you prefer) to what is pictured in this passage.   "Giving them over to .."  is similar, IMO, to "giving up on  ."  
cd: Lets try this. Scenario You are on the edge of a cliff holding onto a very lightweight women (ie the smallest and tiniest women ever born-so small in fact you could hold her weight for as long as you wanted to- even for eternity) who has slipped over the edge and you hand is the only thing suspending her  and preventing her from falling into this volcanic quarter (but this is not as other volcanos-it has the fountain of youth leaking into its molten lava and if she fall she will remain young forever in this fiery inferno-burning forever)and you let go. How is this scenario different from God letting those go in Romans go. See my point?
 2 Thess.2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,that they should believe a lie;12. That they all might be damned Is send  passive also?

This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    If we are going to credit God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their own doing.    

Do you see my point?  
cd:Respectfully- I see that you created a god of your own imagine that is not the God of the Bible-just as DaH has created a place he calls hell which is not the the hell of the Bible.God has stated" Vengeance belongs to me I will repay". How does you god compare to the God whom destoyies 2/3 of earth population as shown in the book of Revelations? Consider the God Moses met upon the mountain in Exodus 19. This God told the people to purify themselves for three days-and after doing so Moses was warned not to let the people come near the mountain-this was repeated in verses 12,21,22,24-why because Christ feared that the Lord would break forth upon them and destroy them in v.22-Then Moses was told to "get away" lest He break forth.This is the reaction of God when a un repented sinner comes into his presence. The bible say that on the day of judgement God will literally rip s
 ome people apart why-sin.Respectifully,How does this God compare to the one of your imagination? This is why we warn Mormons...etc

Sure glad this is done respectfully  -- my god and your God and all.   My god and your God are the same.  The only difference is that your God is stuck in a former administration while mine god is free to move about , having revealed the mystery of salvation offered and given to all.  

cd:Two points, Your God doesn't agree with the Bible (see book of revelations) and salvation is not given to all-it is offered to all but not received by all. 

jd   

  .

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

David  --  I do not understand your logic here.   If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing  -  how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time,   completed?   "I am being made a better person"  presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me.   Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?"  

Jd  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:56:58 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification 
> which is not yet complete.

How do you read this into the text?  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor"  writes:

That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

I have no idea what you are talking about Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of 
focus because of the faith and influence of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified in any other sense because she remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and
sin.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor"  writes:

Fair enough. Do you accept the present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do not.

Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

Are you living in some kind of delusion Bill?
My understanding of that text remains the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality here
rather than presumption.  jt
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

No it does not     Perhaps this is true in your case.  I am not sure you understand the problem,   but I think you do.    Others, clearly, do not  and that is my point.    The average reader will see this as a completed action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point.   IN THAT REGARD,   this is a poor translation of the text.   A much better translation would be as Bill suggested,  IMO.   

Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

JD wrote:
> The translation presents the reader with a 
> completed task when that is not the case. 

No it does not.  The translation is present passive.  You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past tense.  Nothing in this translation indicates whether our sanctification is completed or is still ongoing.  It only indicates that we are sanctified at the present time.

Peace.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

  -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

JD wrote:
> I think Bill's point  (correct me if I am wrong,
> Bill) is that the KJ translation gives us a past
> tense translation of a present tense participle.
> There is no good reason for doing such and
> in that context, it is a "mistake."

I did not understand Bill this way, but if that is what he is saying, he 
would be wrong.  The phrase "are sanctified" is not past tense.  The syntax 
of "sanctified" looks like a past tense construction, but it is simply a 
participle construction of the verb "sanctify" that looks the same as the 
past tense form of the verb.  The tense of the verb is present tense, as 
indicated by the word "are."  If it were past tense, the phrase would be 
"were sanctified" not "are sanctified."  The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case.  

JD wrote:
> In the English, this past tense translation circumvents
> ENTIRELY the impact of  sanctification  as ongoing
> event by another in our lives.

It would only be your own personal reading of "are sanctified" that would 
circumvent ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as an ongoing event.  The 
phrase is present tense, and hence it does not circumvent anything of the 
sort.  Your confusion in the first paragraph would seem to prove my point.   

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/23/2005 11:30:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:54:30 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/23/2005 9:42:23 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond

Actually,  Ro 1: 18-25 is a statement of circumstances failed and , as such,  find the sinner given over to his own creation.  Homosexuality is only one of 26 sins listed   --   a list that was NOT intended to be a complete list, no doubt.   Verses 18-25 applies to back-talking parents just as much as it applies to homosexuality.   Paul has not singled out one sin  (gayness) to the exclusion of the others in the list. 

cd: To begin with John Romans 1 (KJV)is showing the character of those who are homosexual-v29 starts of with "Being filled..." which show it is connected to and a part of v.28  and "They..." of verse 27 is referring to v.26. It is speaking of the same group of people. The idea is that people who will go this far into darkness will have no value for any laws and this I have wittinessed-but one must try and bring them truth also which is why we preach to them. Also the word "Gayness" means goodness-are these people good?

Are you trying to tell me that the sin example is used consistently in this text?   OF COURSE  IT IS.   But Paul could have plugged in any of the 26 sins and made the point.  Paul is not accusing his readership of being homosexual only  in 2:1-3.   "...  you who judge practice the same things  ...(v1).   What "thingS"?   The list, my friend.   

CD:Then how do the believers do the same things listed for the ungodly? In v2 Paul is speaking to the Jews who did such things as is on the list -not the Godly-He is warning us not to do the same as the ungodly-for if we condemn them for such acts-then be sure we are not doing the same.

Because of the truth of such passages as Heb.10:14,  we realize that we are not to be defined by our sins.   Instead, we are to consider ourselves dead to sin  (Ro 6:11) and in this consideration, allow the old man to fade while the new man becomes the motivating influence   ( Eph 4:20-24  --  yes Virginian,  the old man is still there).   
cd: Actually we are new creatures in Christ-2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ,he is a new creature: old thing are pasted away:behold all things are become new. No -Virginian-the old man is gone.The key that helps me understand the bible is if it disagrees then my understanding must change -not chose one verse and ignore the other.    So you just going to pretend that Eph 4:20-24 is not there? 

cd: We choose each day to put on the new man or the old man-Walk in Holiness or return to sin.This is not saying we haven't changed it is to warn not to return to sin as the old man did.

 Or what about I Co 3:1ff? 
cd: Paul is speaking to a church which is regressing into sin.Paul is giving then milk because they cannot receive the stronger word of truth. This is in no way stating a born again believer retains the old man.
   Or Romans 3:23?
cd: Yes all have sinned-but in the past-v25"...,to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,through the forbearance of God.

   Or the conifrmation to the SAINTS IN ROMAN that there is none who are righeous,  no not one?
Cd: Read the rest of the Paragraph-One cannot take one sentence to form a doctorine-He is talking to the lost-v.11...there are none that seek after God. Is this also true-Do you seek after God? v12 ...There is none that does Good. Did Jesus do good? Did Paul do good?Have you helped the poor? Then who is this talking to if not the lost.v.18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. Do you fear God? I do. So who is their referring to if not the lost. Your teaching would have us believe it should read. There is no fear of God before our eyes.

Luke 1;6 And they were both righteous before God...
Romans 5:19..so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous.
cd: Respectifully-If any words in the Bible doesn't agree with ones belief then it is our duty to search out why-do this and live.

We are all affected by sin   (Ro 2:1) and should not forget this fact when we are filled with he desire to judge others as if we are different.   The point of the book of Romans is two-fold  (at least through chapter 8)  --   we are sinners and still dealing with sin issues AND God in Christ  saves us anyway. 
cd: There is a vast difference then judging others and judging sin-If I see a child molester molesting a child can I not say "Stop Child Molester"-would it be fair for him to say"Hey stop Judging me you are in the wrong"-this doesn't make sense to me. No- we are not still sinners-John I summit to you that you have been influ

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!


Kevin, you speaking out against the use of "idiot" is like Hitler preaching against murder.   You are the single most prolific verbal assassin on this forum  --  including Jduy !!     -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:22:42 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!




Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter whilst imbedding their comments (I'm not referring to you here, John) with inflammatory language.
 
First we learn that Lance can not SEE a Thief 
 
AND now we learn he can not Identify an "IDIOT" (the inflamatory statement not the person)
 
May I quote -> 
 
Bill, remember the words of Rush -- when you argue with an idiot, no one can tell the difference. Maybe I should pay attention to that advice as well. JdLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

To David Miller:
 
What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which I was getting at re: your visit to 'the campus'. I suspect you already know that as we've spoken of it previously. 
 
IMO, this 'conversation' falls into the same category as so many 'exchanges' do on TT. Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter whilst imbedding their comments (I'm not referring to you here, John) with inflammatory language. I once employed the subject 'my theology can beat up your theology'. Much of TT is comprised of 'schoolyard' language.
 
On the other hand, 'G' possesses the 'gift of concision' ; Bill is an exegete/theologian of the first order, the 'bishop' exemplifies thoughtful passion, while 'the David' illustrates the limitations of an extremely smart/talented self-taught person. (Too bad we've lost the likes of Jonathan, Caroline & Debbie) 

- Original Message - 
From: knpraise@aol.com 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: November 24, 2005 00:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!



  



 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 6:43:33 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!



ALL I DID WAS ASK A QUESTION?  Do you know what a "question" is Dean?   Do you know what a question is not?   I don't think so.   
 
I could care less about your explanation on the use of Mormon underwear.  It makes your ministry look ignorant and ACCOMPLISHES NO GOOD WHATSOEVER for the cause of Christ.   You do so much more harm than any fantasized good and that is probably the reason why so few churches support this kind of street preaching.   In fact,  not a single church here in Fresno or the surrounding area supports this kind of "preaching."    But of course, they are all wrong and you and smudge mouth are right.   Go figure. 
 
cd: This type of preaching has caused fear to fall upon the hearer and lead many to repentance and Christ and salvationnonsense, Dean.   I am not talking about preaching the gospel of Christ  --   I am talking about underwear and associated mindless chatter.   You want to get tough and preach in their face --  be my guest.   But when you defend insulting and demeaning tactics, underwear waving and the like  --  you are not talking to someone who is ever going to believe you.   To think that you believe that you can accomplish  good by insulting strangers is almost humorous.    &nbs
p; -How is that not good-it has bore the fruit thereof-We have converted Homos-come out and preach to homo with us-We have converted Mormons come out and preach to other Mormons? You are judging too quickly John. Jesus used old testament examples so I will use one-nay two.  Isaiah 58 "Cry aloud,spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet,and shew my people their transgressions,and the house of Jacob their sins."God said to do this-I have done so-You tell me it is wrong.  When the prophets of Baal were calling fire from heaven in 1 Kings 18:26-27. v27" And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them..." This is of God John-slow down and listen lest you find yourself fighting against God. 
 
I am not against street preaching, per se.   But there is simply no biblical example of a NT preacher or evangelist who was "in your face"  except on occasion.   The norm is  -  in terms of biblical example  -  is quite different.  
 
 
JD
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore moore@earthlink.net>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:15:08 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!



 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/21/2005 11:00:27 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!



Just asking  ---   who said anything about being drunk?   I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why not chew.  Whatever.  
 
cd: You had mentioned me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to vi

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/24/2005 10:26:10 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your own." 

cd: On this I can agree as to stand upon ones own is to face a beast of terrible power with no defense-surly this beast would prevail.

Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  
cd: But there is an action done by God as shown in v28 ...God gave them over to a reprobate mind-how does this become " not active"?    It is "passive" in  that God did not give them a reprobate mind  -   they got it the old fashioned way  --  they earned it.   God "giving them over to a reprobate mind" does not mean that God did something to them IN ADDITION to what they had done to themselves.  Mine is a theological consideration  (call it a bias if you prefer) to what is pictured in this passage.   "Giving them over to .."  is similar, IMO, to "giving up on  ."   

This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    If we are going to credit God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their own doing.    

Do you see my point?  
cd:Respectfully- I see that you created a god of your own imagine that is not the God of the Bible-just as DaH has created a place he calls hell which is not the the hell of the Bible.God has stated" Vengeance belongs to me I will repay". How does you god compare to the God whom destoyies 2/3 of earth population as shown in the book of Revelations? Consider the God Moses met upon the mountain in Exodus 19. This God told the people to purify themselves for three days-and after doing so Moses was warned not to let the people come near the mountain-this was repeated in verses 12,21,22,24-why because Christ feared that the Lord would break forth upon them and destroy them in v.22-Then Moses was told to "get away" lest He break forth.This is the reaction of God when a un repented sinner comes into his presence. The bible say that on the day of judgement God will literally rip s
ome people apart why-sin.Respectifully,How does this God compare to the one of your imagination? This is why we warn Mormons...etc

Sure glad this is done respectfully  -- my god and your God and all.   My god and your God are the same.  The only difference is that your God is stuck in a former administration while mine god is free to move about , having revealed the mystery of salvation offered and given to all.   

jd   

  .

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor





DAVEH:  LOL.Yeah G.  But I noticed you tried to top him with
your P's post to Judy.  I'm just surprised you overlooked prayerfully!
+++
show
some more love, M'am--back off a little (like this) so we can talk
about it--privately, if you prefer--preferrably polite but perceptive
protestant prodding & probing, positively, persistantly
& powerfully G
+++

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  (hey
DaveH--a new TT record for concatenating responses, eh? :)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
"Bill
is [sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is)
now; therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which
also squares with human experience; therefore, the present
tense '[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Bill
is [sad]," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the
[sadness] is transitory which also squares with human experience;
therefore, the present tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
myth
("Bill is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the
happiness is transitory which also squares with human experience;
therefore, the present tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
||
> Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete action.  
> "Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his

> happiness.
||
 
  
   

 
  


-- 
 ~~~
 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] corrector/revisor





DAVEH:   To me it seems a bit too dogmatic to see folks going to
ridiculous extremes to validate their position.  (That's not to say I
haven't been accused of such myself!)  But I really do appreciate your
point about digging deep and discovering new and interesting things.

Sure, I can see a distinction between a copyist's error, and a
translating error.   One could argue that correctly translating the
copiest's error is evidence the translator is extremely accurate.  That
begs the question though.Is it better to have accuracy in the
translation, or accuracy in truth.  And, being absolutely accurate in
translating an error does not necessarily mean that the translator's
work on a whole is reliable.  As you've pointed out before, the
punctuation can have a big effect on the meaning.is it not the
translator who determines the punctuation?  And if so, then are we not
left to wonder/hope/presume he was duly inspired at the time he put his
spin on the Message?

David Miller wrote:

  
  
  
  Hi Dave.  
   
  I don't think you can imagine the joy I get when harmonizing
some passages.  I agree that some people carry it too far if they are
not open to the idea that there might just be mistakes.  Nevertheless,
those who are too eager to accept mistakes miss out on some interesting
study.
   
  When I looked up the passage about Solomon's stables some years
ago, you cannot imagine my amazement to discover the yod in the actual
Hebrew text.  The lexicons all make out like the word is the same. 
Then, to realize that the yod is 10, and to see the math all work out,
well, it certainly brings to bear what Jesus said when he said not one
jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled.  
   
  Concerning your example of the age of Jehoiachin, I am not aware
of any explanation other than a copyist error here.  That is not the
same thing as a translation error.  I hope you can appreciate this
distinction.  It also does not mean that the text was wrong in the
autographs.  Furthermore, it is noteworthy that we can use our
knowledge of this matter to know that Jehoiachin was 18 and not 8, so
the truth has not been lost.
   
  Peace be with you.
David Miller.
   
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:52 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




DAVEH:    Thank you for taking the time to respond, DavidM.  I know you
are a busy guy, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.  

    As I see it, when one goes to extremes to harmonize numerous
apparent discrepancies to fit one's belief paradigm, it reduces the
credibility of the believer.  If there were just one example of such
numerical errors in the Bible, perhaps rationalizing it would be
understandable.  But to do it time after time on passages that seem out
of whack causes an independent spectator to conclude that the guy doing
the rationalizing probably has a tendency to rationalize other
doctrines that are not quite so trivial.  To me it would seem much
better to reexamine the basic root belief that forces one to do the
harmonizing.  Why stick to a theory that is not obviously and
explicitly Biblically supported.especially when there are so many
examples that bring the theory into serious question.  Isn't it just
better to believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly rather
than die on the hill that claims it is absolutely translated
correctly?  Common sense dictates it is risky to believe any given
translation reflects the Word of God correctly in all instances.

    For instance, what are your thoughts on

 2Kgs 24

[8] Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign,
and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was
Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

 ...and

2Chr. 36

[9] Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and
he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that
which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

...Do those discrepancies strike you as a distinct error that
has crept into the KJV Bible, or do you feel comfortable harmonizing
them?

David Miller wrote:

  Dean wrote:
  
  
1Kg 4:26---Solomon had 40,000 stalls for the horses


2Chronicles 9:25---Solomon had 4,000 stalls for the horses
cd: Can the KJV be so accurate that is talking of two different
timelines and that the barn might have grown? Or can it be
possibly speaking of two different barns one with 40,000 and
another with 4,000 stalls which he bestowed to the chariot cities
and the King of Jerusalem 2 CHR: 9: 25?

  
  
Perhaps, but I think the point is that the King James says "stalls" in both 
places.

Some scholars point out that the word translated in 2 Chron. 9:25 is 
slightly different.  It has a yod in it that is lacking in the word found in 
1 Ki

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/24/2005 10:26:10 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your own." 

cd: On this I can agree as to stand upon ones own is to face a beast of terrible power with no defense-surly this beast would prevail.

Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  
cd: But there is an action done by God as shown in v28 ...God gave them over to a reprobate mind-how does this become " not active"?

This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    If we are going to credit God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their own doing.    

Do you see my point?  
cd:Respectfully- I see that you created a god of your own imagine that is not the God of the Bible-just as DaH has created a place he calls hell which is not the the hell of the Bible.God has stated" Vengeance belongs to me I will repay". How does you god compare to the God whom destoyies 2/3 of earth population as shown in the book of Revelations? Consider the God Moses met upon the mountain in Exodus 19. This God told the people to purify themselves for three days-and after doing so Moses was warned not to let the people come near the mountain-this was repeated in verses 12,21,22,24-why because Christ feared that the Lord would break forth upon them and destroy them in v.22-Then Moses was told to "get away" lest He break forth.This is the reaction of God when a un repented sinner comes into his presence. The bible say that on the day of judgement God will literally rip some people apart why-sin.Respectifully,How does this God compare to the one of your imagination? This is why we warn Mormons...etc

jd   

  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore moore@earthlink.net>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD

cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then v29 is the result of v.27.
Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
Rom 1:28 - 
They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in both places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek 
and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv ely concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.

Re: [TruthTalk] Flat Tax?





DAVEH:   So far I've only responded to my own post just once.  I can
tolerate that, but in the future one can assume any double responses to
be a measure of my advancing senility. 
:-) 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  while intuition
suggested you wouldn't
   
  On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:36:17 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
DAVEH:   Wow G.You've twice responded to your own post...
 
||
  


-- 
 ~~~
 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] corrector/revisor

Ah.   Now I see.  Why the race? Well,   i guess I should defer to Bill, although I think I understood the point.     -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:20:48 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?   
and it got a hearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance.  

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

RACE.    What is that about?how do you get a race out this?   I remain confused.   -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

I know what you are commenting on JD; 
However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 
where this thread began.  Bill has gone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to 
do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14.  The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice 
against the once for all sacrifice of Christ.  Now how do you get a race out this?  You are lost because you 
are off on the same tangent as Bill.  judyt

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what  ??   This is a great question:  Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?   and it got a hearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance.  

From: Judy Taylor 

Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI
Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come
to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the first that He may establish the second.  By
that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"

So where is this race..

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Not laughting at you , David,  but I am laughing at the quetion  !!!   
Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow      if you get my drift.   :-)

jd  -Original Message-From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification 
> which is not yet complete.

How do you read this into the text?  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor"  writes:

That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle i

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond


Perhaps someone should consider that I am not.   -Original Message-From: Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:54:24 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond



 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/23/2005 6:40:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond



  -Original Message-From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:52:50 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond



Judy wrote:There is no such animal as a "believing sinner" - Sin is sin, and righteousness is righteous.  Abraham believed and it was counted to him for righteousness.  The just shall live by faith.Amen, Judy! While I know we have never addressed this issue on TT before, I suspect this is the crux of the disagreement. Also, JD, since when did exhortation to right-living become judging? And how can Jesus save those who do not know that they are living in sin? (i.e., "I came to save the sinners, not the righteous")
 
Who made the comparison of "exhortation"  to "judging?"   Certainly not me.   Paul is the one making the point (Ro 2:1ff).   Paul is certainly in favor of calling a spade a spade.   But sin  separated from the circumstances of Ro 1:18-25 is what Paul has in mind when he admonishes concerning "judging"    "Judging" to me is something said with a view to condemnation.   It is Kevin telling me that I am unsaved...that is judging.   In no wise do my sins rise to the level described in 1:18-25.   
 
Believing sinners??   With a reading of Eph 4:20-24  , certainly such is possible.   And what of I Co 3:1.   Those pictured in that passage are carnal, not spiritual and , yet, [obviously] saved.   If we say that we are having no sin we deceive ourselves  --  and I could go on and on.   
 
JD
cd I think you should consider that Christine is speaking of on going -unrepented- believing sinner-(ie. a lost person)

 

Judy Taylor  wrote: 

 
 
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:42:23 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Actually,  Ro 1: 18-25 is a statement of circumstances failed and , as such,  find the sinner given over to his own creation.  
 
Romans 1 speaks of what happens to people who hold the truth in unrighteousness.  That is, they know the truth but do not choose to walk in it.  God eventually gives them over to a depraved mind.  What are you talking about "failed circumstances?"  We are responsible for our choices every day same as them.
 
 
Homosexuality is only one of 26 sins listed   --   a list that was NOT intended to be a complete list, no doubt.   Verses 18-25 applies to back-talking parents just as much as it applies to homosexuality.   Paul has not singled out one sin  (gayness) to the exclusion of the others in the list. 
 
Maybe not but sexual perversion and uncleanness in this area is huge, it is taking over our country and should be taken more seriously than put on a par with "talking back to parents"  Look at the sins of the Amorites for which they were driven out and destroyed as a nation:
 
1. Homosexuality 
2. Incest
3. Inordinate affection
4. Adultery
5. Idolatry
6. Profanity
7. Bestiality
8. Witchcraft
9. Whoredom
10. Dishonor to parents
11. Murder
12. Stealing
13. Lying
 
Because of the truth of such passages as Heb.10:14,  we realize that we are not to be defined by our sins.   Instead, we are to consider ourselves dead to sin  (Ro 6:11) and in this consideration, allow the old man to fade while the new man becomes the motivating influence   ( Eph 4:20-24  --  yes Virginian,  the old man is still there).  
 
Who is Virginian JD?  Are you speaking in a veiled way to me?  I don't define myself by sin; I see myself as righteous
in Christ - thank you. 
 
We are all affected by sin   (Ro 2:1) and should not forget this fact when we are filled with he desire to judge others as if we are different.   The point of the book of Romans is two-fold  (at least through chapter 8)  --   we are sinners and still dealing with sin issues AND God in Christ  saves us anyway. 
 
The above must be the gospel according to JD because my Bible tells me that we should judge only with righteous judgment and not stick our heads in the sand.  
 
In the Romans 1:18-25 passage, the difference between "us" and "them" is seen in the "failed circumstances" mentioned, to wit:  we are given over to our individual lusts  (all temptation appeals to a lust of some kind  -  James 1:14-15)  --  preferring the sin to the savior;  we come to a point when we serve ourselves to the exclusion of God;  we have cease to honor God as God;  we have left off giving thanks to God  (acknowledging His as our provider);  turning to speculations [as opposed to being led by the Spirit].  We our sins take us to the point of these failures,  we are lost.   The scary truth of the matter is this:  all sin has this ability.  
 
Yeah, wel

[TruthTalk] Izzy's Sexual Experiences

You
know I'll tell!

DAVEH: Wow Izzy..I am rather surprised to hear you say that!
But it is nice to know you are not so hypocritical that you would not
be willing to post on TT such personal things as you expect me to
share. Now that I think about it Izzy, I'm sure it would be much more
interesting for TTers to hear about your sexual experiences than mine.
Do
tell! :-[

ShieldsFamily wrote:

You know I'll tell! :-)

DAVEH: Do you really think it is appropriate to discuss such personal
things on a public forum that is known for its lack of taste at times?
If you really want to know the answer to personal questions such as
that, contact me off-Forum and I'll answer your question.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

So DO you???

I’ve read
that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too.

DAVEH: That is not my understanding, nor would I think anybody else
(LDS) understands it that way. Howeverit is not a topic I've
discussed with others, nor have I ever heard it discussed in any LDS
meetings I've attended or in other official discussions.

There are numerous instances where it is not appropriate to wear
them, viz., playing basketball, swimming, etc.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

How about
during sex, DaveH? I’ve read that you’re supposed to leave them on
then, too. True or false? izzy

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Dave
Hansen
Sent: Wednesday,
November 23, 2005 1:31 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

The
Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them
to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time.

DAVEH: Hmmm.I continue to learn by my presence on TT.
That's one I haven't tried yet, Dean! :-D

Note to Perry: Like I said, I'm here to learn what Protestants
(and Dean, if he isn't a P) believe. If nothing else, learning that
you folks believe such things as this is a constant form of
entertainment! :-)

Dean Moore wrote:

Just asking ---
who said anything about being drunk? I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why
not chew. Whatever.

cd: You had mentioned
me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim
that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek
Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to
view these holy objects-They are easy to obtain for the local pawn
shops as many are getting rid of them. We hold them up and declare that
true holiness is to live by the gospel of Christ which is an inner
cleanliness not an outer cleanliness. The Mormons have to leave
them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash
one half of their bodies at a time.

--
~~~
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] corrector/revisor




perhaps..
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:01:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..do 
  any of us..deny that sanctification is [not merely] 
  emotional?
   
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Book of Enoch




The book is not inspired.  Only late manuscripts are known.  
Nevertheless, it is worth reading from a historical perspective.  We have a 
copy of it on our website in the library, along with the book of Jasher.  
It should be read in the same way one might read any textbook or extra biblical 
writing.  Some of it is very interesting and worthwhile.
 
David M.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:04 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Book of Enoch
  
  
  A friend is reading 
  the Book of Enoch from the Apocrypha.  Does anyone know if any of it is 
  inspired, or is it all false teaching? 
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




yo/ftr, 
do any 
of us Canuckistanis deny that sanctification is emotional?
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:38:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Eh?  Got relatives in Canada 
eh?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: November 24, 2005 12:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

(hey DaveH--a 
new TT record for concatenating responses, eh? 
:)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Bill is 
  [sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; 
  therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which also 
  squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
  tense '[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
"Bill is 
[sad]," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is 
transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
present tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
  myth 
  ("Bill is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the 
  happiness is transitory which also squares with human experience; 
  therefore, the present tense 'happiness' is 
  incomplete)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David 
  Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not 
  necessarily indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is 
  happy," this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
  happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




yesirrreeebob
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:38:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Eh?  Got relatives in Canada 
eh?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: November 24, 2005 12:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

(hey DaveH--a 
new TT record for concatenating responses, eh? 
:)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Bill is 
  [sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; 
  therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which also 
  squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
  tense '[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
"Bill is 
[sad]," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is 
transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
present tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
  myth 
  ("Bill is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the 
  happiness is transitory which also squares with human experience; 
  therefore, the present tense 'happiness' is 
  incomplete)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David 
  Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not 
  necessarily indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is 
  happy," this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
  happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

2005-11-24 Thread Lance Muir




Eh?  Got relatives in Canada eh?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 24, 2005 12:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  (hey DaveH--a new 
  TT record for concatenating responses, eh? :)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
"Bill is 
[sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; 
therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which also 
squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
tense '[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Bill is 
  [sad]," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is 
  transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
  present tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

 
myth ("Bill 
is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness 
is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
present tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David 
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not 
necessarily indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is happy," 
this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting 
for the likes of Paul to catch up?   
and it got a hearty laugh out of my otherwise 
demonical countenance.  

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  RACE.    What is that 
  about?how do you get a 
  race out this?   I remain 
  confused.   -Original Message-From: 
  Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 
  24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  I know what you are commenting on JD; 
  However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace 
  and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 

  where this thread began.  Bill has gone 
  from Greek verbs to some race none of which have 
  anything to 
  do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 
  10:14.  The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice 

  against the once for all 
  sacrifice of Christ.  Now how do you get a race out this?  You 
  are lost because you 
  are off on the same 
  tangent as Bill.  judyt

  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am committing on 
Bill's statement below and you are doing 
what  ??   This is a great question:  Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the 
likes of Paul to catch up?   and it got a hearty 
laugh out of my otherwise demonical 
countenance.  

From: Judy Taylor 

Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI
Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh 
what a tangled web we weave...

Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have 
come
to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the 
first that He may establish the second.  By
that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
all"

So where is this race..

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Not laughting at you , 
  David,  but I am laughing at the quetion  !!!   
  Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow   
     if you get my drift.   :-)

  jd  -Original Message-From: 
  Taylor To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 
  -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

  You highlight the problem with leaving 
  off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing 
  track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have 
  finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch 
  up?

  Bill

- Original Message - 
From: 
David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 
6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our 
sanctification 
> which is not yet 
complete.

How do you read this into the text?  
Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is 
somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, 
but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going 
beyond what is indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 
  2005 8:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  Well actually, "by one offering" is a 
  prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third 
  person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: 
  "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't 
  expect you to be able to understand it.

  Nevertheless, nothing I have said should 
  lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not 
  complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet 
  complete. But I don't expect you to understand that 
  either.

  Bill

- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 
2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the O

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




(Christinie oughta 
be  by now--eh? :)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:08:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  (hey DaveH--a new 
  TT record for concatenating responses, eh? :)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
"Bill is 
[sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; 
therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which also 
squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
tense '[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Bill is 
  [sad]," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is 
  transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
  present tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

 
myth ("Bill 
is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness 
is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
present tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David 
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not 
necessarily indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is happy," 
this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




(hey DaveH--a new 
TT record for concatenating responses, eh? :)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Bill is 
  [sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; 
  therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which also 
  squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
  tense '[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
"Bill is 
[sad]," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is 
transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
  myth ("Bill 
  is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness 
  is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the 
  present tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David 
  Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not 
  necessarily indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is happy," 
  this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
  happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




myth (it's a trick 
eliminating your thinking from reality)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:44:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   I don't have a message 
  JD.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




"Bill is 
[sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; therefore, 
the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which also squares with human 
experience; therefore, the present tense '[sanctified-]ness' is 
incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Bill is [sad]," 
  is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is transitory 
  which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
  tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

 
myth ("Bill is 
happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is 
transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||> Present tense does not necessarily 
indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is happy," this does not 
mean that Bill is incomplete in his > 
happiness.||

[TruthTalk] Radio Talk Show Interview

Bob Rose, a Gainesville radio talk show host, called me yesterday and
interviewed me for more than 10 minutes about my work at the University of
Florida.  Some of you might be interested.

I created a web page of news articles over the last two weeks at:
http://www.InnGlory.org/uf.htm

The radio interview is the last link on this page.  It is an MP3 file over 5
MB's in size, so it might take a few minutes to download for you.  This was
the second interview done.  I don't have a copy of the one from last week.
I also do not have a copy of all the call-ins that discussed the topic.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD


Well, it certainly does appear that you understand the point of 12:18-19.   So, why not let God do his thing while you do what He asked you to do?     -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:22:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD



I know I'm wasting my time with this ... sigh!!  I don't have a message JD.  
Romans 12:19 is God's message in the New Testament  - the same message as all through the rest 
of the Bible which you summarily reject because your God is not the avenging kind.  Oh well!!
What Paul teaches here is that we are free to love ppl because God is the one who will take care 
of wrongs and slights - He is the avenger - and this is HIS teaching and HIS brand of vengeance, 
not mine.
 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:11:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



If you understand the "setting,"  why not practice the wording ??!!   When I said "no one is listening,"  I was talking about you  and your message,  not God and His message.   They are not the same, you know.   You quoted Romans 12:19 as if God is telling you to continue your brand of vengeance when, in point of fact,  Paul is telling us exactly the opposite !!   
 
Turkey or crow, today?   Which will it be , Miss Judy?   :-)  From: Judy Taylor 



 
 I understand the setting JD and just because you don't like it why lie about noone listening; you are not EVERYONE
God's righteous judgment ALL THROUGH SCRIPTURE is that every man will be rewarded according to WHAT HE HAS DONE.  The sinners in Romans 1:18-29 went over the line as did the Amorites who were run out of Canaan and the whole pre-flood civilization.  You don't need to apologize for God JD.  His judgments are ALWAYS righteous unlike some of the fleshly ones put forth on TT.
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:47:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Ah, yes,  God is the Boss and has put you and Kev in charge    Preach it , baby  --  but LOOK    no one is listening.   
 
Do you realize, Judy Taylor,  that 12:18-19 is actually a statement AGAINST the ankst of personal retaliation?   
 
" If possible,  as far as it depends ON YOU,  be at peace with all men.  Never take your own vengeance but leave room for the wrath of God   ..."   
 From: Judy Taylor 



VENGENACE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY SAYS THE LORD (Romans 12:19)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:26:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your own."   
 
Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  
 
This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    If we are going to credit God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their own doing.    
 
Do you see my point?  
 
 
jd   
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore moore@earthlink.net>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then v29 is the result of v.27.
Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
Rom 1:28 - 
They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in both places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv ely concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




show some more 
love, M'am--back off a little (like this) so we can talk about 
it--privately, if you prefer--preferrably polite but perceptive protestant 
prodding & probing, positively, persistantly & powerfully 
G 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:23:43 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  .. what do I think?  You seem to think you 
  know better than me.
   
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

RACE.    What is that about?how do you get a race out this?   I remain confused.   -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

I know what you are commenting on JD; 
However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 
where this thread began.  Bill has gone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to 
do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14.  The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice 
against the once for all sacrifice of Christ.  Now how do you get a race out this?  You are lost because you 
are off on the same tangent as Bill.  judyt

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what  ??   This is a great question:  Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?   and it got a hearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance.  

From: Judy Taylor 

Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI
Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come
to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the first that He may establish the second.  By
that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"

So where is this race..

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Not laughting at you , David,  but I am laughing at the quetion  !!!   
Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow      if you get my drift.   :-)

jd  -Original Message-From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification 
> which is not yet complete.

How do you read this into the text?  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

I have no idea what you are talking about Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of 
focus because of the faith and influence of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified i

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




I know I'm wasting my time with this ... sigh!!  
I don't have a message JD.  
Romans 12:19 is God's message in the New 
Testament  - the same message as all through the 
rest 
of the Bible which you summarily reject because your 
God is not the avenging kind.  Oh well!!
What Paul teaches here is that we are free to 
love ppl because God is the one who will take care 
of wrongs and slights - He 
is the avenger - and this is HIS teaching and HIS brand of vengeance, 

not mine.
 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:11:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  If you understand the "setting,"  why not practice the wording 
  ??!!   When I said "no one is listening,"  I was talking 
  about you  and your message,  not God and 
  His message.   They are not the same, you know.   You 
  quoted Romans 12:19 as if God is telling you to continue your brand of vengeance when, in point of 
  fact,  Paul is telling us exactly the opposite !!   
   
  Turkey or crow, today?   
  Which will it be , Miss Judy?   
  :-)  From: Judy Taylor 
  

  
   
   I understand the setting JD and just because 
  you don't like it why lie about noone 
  listening; you are not EVERYONE
  God's righteous judgment ALL THROUGH 
  SCRIPTURE is that every man will be rewarded according to 
  WHAT HE HAS DONE.  The sinners in 
  Romans 1:18-29 went over the line as did the Amorites who were run out of Canaan and the whole pre-flood 
  civilization.  You don't need to apologize for God JD.  His 
  judgments are ALWAYS righteous unlike some of the fleshly 
  ones put forth on TT.
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:47:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


Ah, yes,  God is the Boss and has put you and Kev in 
charge    Preach it , baby  --  but LOOK  
  no one is listening.   
 
Do you realize, Judy Taylor,  that 12:18-19 is actually a 
statement AGAINST the ankst of personal 
retaliation?   
 
" If possible,  as far as it depends ON YOU,  be at peace 
with all men.  Never take your own vengeance but leave room for the wrath of God   
..."   
 From: Judy Taylor 



VENGENACE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY SAYS THE LORD (Romans 
12:19)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:26:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. 
  Ro 1:18-29, that the most 
  damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  
  "You are on your own."   
   
  Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   
  -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this 
  circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God 
  who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from 
  God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  
  --  of course.  
   
  This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused 
  their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these 
  powers.    If we are going to credit 
  God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed 
  vengeance to be a product of a broken 
  hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid 
  this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these 
  powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of 
  their own doing.    
   
  Do you see my point?  
   
   
  jd   
   
   
   
    -Original Message-From: Dean Moore 
  moore@earthlink.net>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD
  

  
  
  cd: In verse 28 God gave them 
  over to a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the 
  gift of understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. 
  So then v29 is the result of 
  v.27.
  Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
  Rom 1:28 - 
  They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more 
  literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not 
  Search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the 
  evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and attributes; 
  therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in 
  both places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine 
  nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of 
  reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and 
  Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv e

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




So tell me Mr. myth man - what do I think?  You 
seem to think you know better than me.
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:09:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth (it's not 
  what you think)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
 Bill's statement is way out there someplace 
and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 

    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




"Bill is [sad]," is 
presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is transitory which 
also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
  myth ("Bill is 
  happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is 
  transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
  tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David Miller" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:||> Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete 
  action.  > "Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is 
  incomplete in his > happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




myth (it's not what 
you think)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   Bill's statement is way out there someplace and 
  has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD


If you understand the "setting,"  why not practice the wording ??!!   When I said "no one is listening,"  I was talking about you  and your message,  not God and His message.   They are not the same, you know.   You quoted Romans 12:19 as if God is telling you to continue your brand of vengeance when, in point of fact,  Paul is telling us exactly the opposite !!   
 
Turkey or crow, today?   Which will it be , Miss Judy?   :-)  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:55:04 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD



 I understand the setting JD and just because you don't like it why lie about noone listening; you are not EVERYONE
God's righteous judgment ALL THROUGH SCRIPTURE is that every man will be rewarded according to WHAT HE HAS DONE.  The sinners in Romans 1:18-29 went over the line as did the Amorites who were run out of Canaan and the whole pre-flood civilization.  You don't need to apologize for God JD.  His judgments are ALWAYS righteous unlike some of the fleshly ones put forth on TT.
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:47:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Ah, yes,  God is the Boss and has put you and Kev in charge    Preach it , baby  --  but LOOK    no one is listening.   
 
Do you realize, Judy Taylor,  that 12:18-19 is actually a statement AGAINST the ankst of personal retaliation?   
 
" If possible,  as far as it depends ON YOU,  be at peace with all men.  Never take your own vengeance but leave room for the wrath of God   ..."   
 From: Judy Taylor 



VENGENACE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY SAYS THE LORD (Romans 12:19)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:26:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your own."   
 
Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  
 
This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    If we are going to credit God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their own doing.    
 
Do you see my point?  
 
 
jd   
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore moore@earthlink.net>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then v29 is the result of v.27.
Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
Rom 1:28 - 
They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in both places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv ely concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

I know what you are commenting on JD; 
However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace 
and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 

where this thread began.  Bill has gone from 
Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything 
to 
do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14.  
The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice 
against the once for all 
sacrifice of Christ.  Now how do you get a race out this?  You 
are lost because you 
are off on the same tangent 
as Bill.  judyt

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am committing on 
  Bill's statement below and you are doing 
  what  ??   This is a great question:  Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the 
  likes of Paul to catch up?   and it got a hearty 
  laugh out of my otherwise demonical 
  countenance.  

  From: Judy Taylor 

  Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI
  Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what 
  a tangled web we weave...

  Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have 
  come
  to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the first 
  that He may establish the second.  By
  that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
  all"

  So where is this race..

  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Not laughting at you , David,  
but I am laughing at the quetion  
!!!   
Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow   
   if you get my drift.   :-)

jd  -Original Message-From: 
Taylor To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 
-0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

You highlight the problem with leaving off 
the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of 
the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the 
race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 
  6:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  Bill wrote:
  > Per this verse, it is our sanctification 

  > which is not yet complete.

  How do you read this into the text?  
  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is 
  somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but 
  to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond 
  what is indicated by this text.

  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 
8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a 
prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third 
person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; 
but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect 
you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should 
lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not 
complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet 
complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 
  2005 11:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE 
  OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy 
  Taylor  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because 
in my understanding the active part of 
sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being 
sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  That's fine, Judy, but who in this 
  discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as 
  to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree 
  that this participle in Heb 
  10.14 reflect

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




dualism dominates 
and you love to speculate, too
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:48:51 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Your  reality 
  maybe .. she was referring..to..a different reality.
   
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Sorry , Judy,  you have lost me entirely.  I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what  ??   This is a great question:  Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?   and it got a hearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance.  

 -Original Message- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:42:41 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI
Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come
to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the first that He may establish the second.  By
that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"

So where is this race..

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Not laughting at you , David,  but I am laughing at the quetion  !!!   
Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow      if you get my drift.   :-)

jd  -Original Message-From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification 
> which is not yet complete.

How do you read this into the text?  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

I have no idea what you are talking about Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of 
focus because of the faith and influence of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified in any other sense because she remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and
sin.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Fair enough. Do you accept the present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do not.

Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

Are you living in some kind of delusion Bill?
My understanding of that text remains the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality here
rather than presumption.  jt
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




 I understand the setting JD and just because you 
don't like it why lie about noone listening; you are not 
EVERYONE
God's righteous judgment ALL THROUGH 
SCRIPTURE is that every man will be rewarded according to WHAT 
HE HAS DONE.  The sinners in Romans 1:18-29 went 
over the line as did the Amorites who were run out of Canaan and the whole 
pre-flood civilization.  You don't need to apologize for God JD.  His 
judgments are ALWAYS righteous unlike some of the fleshly ones 
put forth on TT.
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:47:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Ah, yes,  God is the Boss and has put you and Kev in charge    Preach it , 
  baby  --  but LOOK    no one is listening.   
  
   
  Do you realize, Judy Taylor,  that 12:18-19 is actually a statement 
  AGAINST the ankst of personal retaliation?   
   
  " If possible,  as far as it depends ON YOU,  be at peace with 
  all men.  Never take your own vengeance but leave room for the wrath of God   
  ..."   
   From: Judy Taylor 
  

  
  VENGENACE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY SAYS THE LORD 
  (Romans 12:19)
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:26:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 
1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this 
statement by God,  "You are on your own."   
 
Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively 
involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  
not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By 
that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone 
behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped 
the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  

 
This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused 
their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these 
powers.    If we are going to credit God 
with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted 
and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this 
circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these 
powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of 
their own doing.    
 
Do you see my point?  
 
 
jd   
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore 
moore@earthlink.net>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to a reprobate mind 
to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of understand 
(discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then v29 is the 
result of v.27.
Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
Rom 1:28 - 
They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more 
literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God 
in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them 
(Rom_1:19, 
Rom_1:20) of 
his being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, 
e?? 
ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in both 
places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, 
and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. 
How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and Roman 
philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv ely 
concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the 
hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived 
them of the right use of these powers.
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor


Get ready for the nasties, Mr G !!!   Save yourself  !!  
 
:-)  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:41:11 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor



my point is that they are false--they have nothin' to do with reality
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:31:25 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Izzy's options are scriptural 
||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




Your own personal reality maybe but then that is all 
about you and she was referring
to His Kingdom which is a different 
reality.
 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:41:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  my point is that 
  they are false--they have nothin' to do with reality
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:31:25 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Izzy's options are scriptural 
||
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no 
"death blow" because FYI
Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a 
tangled web we weave...

Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He 
(Jesus) said "Behold I have come
to do Your will, O God"  He takes away the first 
that He may establish the second.  By
that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
all"

So where is this race..

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Not laughting at you , David,  but I am laughing at the 
  quetion  !!!   
  Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow   
     if you get my drift.   :-)

  jd  -Original Message-From: Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 
  24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  You highlight the problem with leaving off 
  the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of 
  the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the 
  race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

  Bill

- Original Message - 
From: 
David Miller 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification 

> which is not yet complete.

How do you read this into the text?  
Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow 
incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue 
that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is 
indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 
  8:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  Well actually, "by one offering" is a 
  prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person 
  singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the 
  sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly 
  don't expect you to be able to understand it.

  Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead 
  you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per 
  this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I 
  don't expect you to understand that either.

  Bill

- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin 
Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 
11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING 
so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote: 

  I don't speculate on all that Bill because in 
  my understanding the active part of 
  sanctification requires
  the cooperation of the one being sanctified; 
  the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
  give.

  On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:

That's fine, Judy, but who in this 
discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to 
set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that 
this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is 
passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than 
the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 

  I have no idea what you are talking about 
  Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
  and the word "sanctified" in this 
  instance means "set apart" in the same way that an 
  unbelieving
  wife is "set 
  apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is 
  become the object of 
  focus because of the faith and influence 
  of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to 
  be
  sanctified in any other sense because she 
  remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and
  sin.

  On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:

Fair enough. Do you accept the 
present passive thrust of this verb? M

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD


Ah, yes,  God is the Boss and has put you and Kev in charge    Preach it , baby  --  but LOOK    no one is listening.   
 
Do you realize, Judy Taylor,  that 12:18-19 is actually a statement AGAINST the ankst of personal retaliation?   
 
" If possible,  as far as it depends ON YOU,  be at peace with all men.  Never take your own vengeance but leave room for the wrath of God   ..."   
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:36:01 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD



VENGENACE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY SAYS THE LORD (Romans 12:19)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:26:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your own."   
 
Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  
 
This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    If we are going to credit God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their own doing.    
 
Do you see my point?  
 
 
jd   
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore moore@earthlink.net>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then v29 is the result of v.27.
Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
Rom 1:28 - 
They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in both places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv ely concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




my point is that 
they are false--they have nothin' to do with reality
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:31:25 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Izzy's options are scriptural 
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor


If Linda is talking about assumed perfection, a consideration on the part of God toward us,  AMEN. 
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:31:58 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor



World vs faith?
The choice is NOT Difficult 
You have already resolved the conflict, whether one agrees or not
NO Need to halt between two opinions.
He knows what side you are on.
Indifference is active oposition in His book!

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

As for me and my house we will serve the lord 
 
You serve whom you see fit.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
myth (the options are false; the writer's elimination of difficulty is revealing)



||


 
ShieldsFamily wrote: 
||
 We can also choose to remain in the state of perfection forever by faith, or we can choose to walk like the world again.  This is not difficult..



Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less



Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




VENGENACE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY SAYS THE LORD 
(Romans 12:19)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:26:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all 
  realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your 
  own."   
   
  Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   
  -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this 
  circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who 
  has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and 
  worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of 
  course.  
   
  This last statement is not something i agree with:  But 
  here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and 
  God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    
  If we are going to credit God with an avenging 
  nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed 
  God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this 
  circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these 
  powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their 
  own doing.    
   
  Do you see my point?  
   
   
  jd   
   
   
   
    -Original Message-From: Dean Moore 
  moore@earthlink.net>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD
  

  
  
  cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to 
  a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of 
  understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then 
  v29 is the result of v.27.
  Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
  Rom 1:28 - 
  They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more literal 
  to translate ??? 
  ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God in their 
  knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and 
  attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning 
  mind; for it is the same word in both places. They did not reflect on the 
  proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations 
  of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as 
  many of the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason 
  so inconsecutiv ely concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But 
  here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and 
  God deprived them of the right use of these powers.
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




Izzy's options are scriptural and you Gary are in the 
void so far as understanding goes ie
"But Christ as a Son over His own house, WHOSE 
HOUSE WE ARE IF we hold fast
the confidence and the rejoicing of 
the hope firm to the end" (Heb 3:6) (which is faith)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:01:37 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'concis[ion]..' void of [jt's] understanding..:

  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:57:32 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
  This is what Lance calls 'concise?'
  Passing judgment that is void of understanding - 
  critical spirits masquerading as some 
  kind of bent wisdom?
  
 On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:37:42 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth (the 
options are false; the writer's elimination 
of difficulty is revealing

  ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  
  We 
  can also choose to remain in the state of perfection forever by faith, 
  
  or 
  we can choose to walk like the world again.  This is not 
  difficult..
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

World vs faith?  The choice is NOT Difficult   You have already resolved the conflict, whether one agrees or not  NO Need to halt between two opinions.  He knows what side you are on.  Indifference is active oposition in His book!He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:As for me and my house we will serve the lord      You serve whom you see fit.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:     myth (the options are false; the writer's elimination of difficulty is revealing)||     ShieldsFamily wrote:   ||   We can also choose to remain in the state of perfection forever by faith, or we can choose to walk like the world again.  This is not difficult..Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
 Just $16.99/mo. or less  
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Not laughting at you , David,  but I am laughing at the quetion  !!!   Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow      if you get my drift.   :-)

jd  -Original Message-From: Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Per this verse, it is our sanctification 
> which is not yet complete.

How do you read this into the text?  Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

I have no idea what you are talking about Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is become the object of 
focus because of the faith and influence of her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified in any other sense because she remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and
sin.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Fair enough. Do you accept the present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do not.

Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

Are you living in some kind of delusion Bill?
My understanding of that text remains the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality here
rather than presumption.  jt
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD


 
 
 
Good comments, below.   I have long believed, i.e. Ro 1:18-29, that the most damaging of all realities is the one tied to this statement by God,  "You are on your own."   
 
Understand, also, that God , although pictured as being actively involved in His departure, is   -  in reality  -  not the "active voice"  in this circumstance.    By that I mean to say that it is not God who has left anyone behind.   It is man who has walked away from God and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator  --  of course.  
 
This last statement is not something i agree with:  But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.    If we are going to credit God with an avenging nature,   we must allow for that expressed vengeance to be a product of a broken hearted and disappointed God who is willing  to do anything to avoid this circumstance.   Additionally [and technically]  the text does not say that "God deprived them of the right use of these powers."   Everything that happens to these individuals is of their own doing.    
 
Do you see my point?  
 
 
jd   
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Dean Moore moore@earthlink.net>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:12:35 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then v29 is the result of v.27.
Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
Rom 1:28 - 
They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in both places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv ely concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

As for me and my house we will serve the lord      You serve whom you see fit.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:     myth (the options are false; the writer's elimination of difficulty is revealing)||     ShieldsFamily wrote:   ||   We can also choose to remain in the state of perfection forever by faith, or we can choose to walk
 like the world again.  This is not difficult..  
		 Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

You highlight the problem with leaving off the 
present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the 
unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, 
while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  Bill wrote:
  > Per this verse, it is our sanctification 

  > which is not yet complete.

  How do you read this into the text?  Nothing 
  in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow 
  incomplete.  Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue 
  that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is 
  indicated by this text.

  Peace be with you.
  David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

Well actually, "by one offering" is a 
prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person 
singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: 
"he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't 
expect you to be able to understand it.

Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead 
you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per 
this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't 
expect you to understand that either.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 
  11:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor

  The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING 
  so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 

I don't speculate on all that Bill because in 
my understanding the active part of 
sanctification requires
the cooperation of the one being sanctified; 
the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to
give.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  That's fine, Judy, but who in this 
  discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to 
  set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that 
  this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect a sanctification which is 
  passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the 
  subject) and not yet complete?  Bill

From: Judy 
Taylor 

I have no idea what you are talking about 
Bill.  However I do understand Hebrews 10:14
and the word "sanctified" in this instance 
means "set apart" in the same way that an unbelieving
wife is "set 
apart" in 1 Cor 7:14 which is "set apart in the sense that she is 
become the object of 
focus because of the faith and influence of 
her husband.  It would be impossible for her to be
sanctified in any other sense because she 
remains unregenerated and dead in her trespass and
sin.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:50:27 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Fair enough. Do you accept the 
  present passive thrust of this verb? My impression is that you do 
  not.

  Bill

From: Judy Taylor 

Are you living in some kind of delusion 
Bill?
My understanding of that text remains 
the same as it was, so please let's deal with reality 
here
rather than presumption.  
jt

judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

  Yahoo! 
  FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:57:32 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   'concis[ion]..' void of [jt's] understanding..:
   
  On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:37:42 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
myth (the 
options are false; the writer's elimination 
of difficulty is revealing)

  
  
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




This is what Lance calls 'concise?'
Passing judgment that is void of understanding - 
critical spirits masquerading as some 
kind of bent wisdom?
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:37:42 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   
  myth (the options 
  are false; the writer's elimination of difficulty is 
  revealing)
  


 


ShieldsFamily wrote: 
We 
can also choose to remain in the state of perfection forever by faith, 

or 
we can choose to walk like the world again.  This is not 
difficult..
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor





 
myth ("Bill is 
happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is 
transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present 
tense 'happiness' is incomplete)
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:||> Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete 
action.  > "Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is 
incomplete in his > happiness.||

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




 
myth (the options 
are false; the writer's elimination of difficulty is 
revealing)

  
  
  ||
  
  
   
  ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  ||
   We 
  can also choose to remain in the state of perfection forever by faith, or we 
  can choose to walk like the world again.  This is not 
  difficult..

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would not have any significant first person, present indicative!Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Aw, Bill, you know this passage is not the same.  This is a perfect participle "hegiasmene" not a present passive, so I'm not sure what your point is.     More specifically this is a perfect passive participle, David. I state that very clearly below; moreover, my translation conveys both of these aspects -- i.e., a perfected action in the passive voice: "having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit." My question to you is What do you think about translating a perfected act into an action whose
 thrust is present and ongoing (cf. "being sanctified")?      Bill- Original Message -   From: David Miller   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:46 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorAw, Bill, you know this passage is not the same.  This is a
 perfect participle "hegiasmene" not a present passive, so I'm not sure what your point is.       David M.- Original Message -   From: Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:03 AM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorKevin writes  >  please provide some other
 passages where Sanctification is an "ONGOING EVENT"        I do not know of any  --  but   . . .  if you are interested, I can show you an example of the KJV translating a perfect passive (in other words, a completed event) into a present, ongoing state: Romans 15:16 "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."A suggested alternative could be, "having been sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
  Hey David, what do you think on this one?     Bill- Original Message -   From: Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:21 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorKevin writes  >  please provide some other passages where Sanctification is an "ONGOING EVENT"     I do not know of any  --  but, contrary to Judy's claim, I can show you several that speak of the act of our sanctification in the passive voice. Would you like to see some of them?     Bill     I can show you an example of the KJV translating a perfect passive (in other words, a completed action) into a present, ongoing tense, if you are interested -- which, by the way, ought to qualify as another mistake.   Romans 15:16 "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."  A suggested alternative would be, "having been sanctified by the Holy Ghost." David, what do you think on this one?     Bill
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

  Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter whilst imbedding their comments (I'm not referring to you here, John) with inflammatory language.     First we learn that Lance can not SEE a Thief      AND now we learn he can not Identify an "IDIOT" (the inflamatory statement not the person)     May I quote ->      Bill, remember the words of Rush -- when you argue with an idiot, no one can tell the difference. Maybe I should pay attention to that advice as well. JdLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  To David Miller:     What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which I was getting at re: your visit to 'the campus'. I suspect you already know that as we've spoken of it previously.      IMO, this 'conversation' falls into the same category as so many 'exchanges' do on TT. Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter whilst imbedding their comments (I'm not referring to you here, John) with inflammatory language. I once employed the subject 'my theology can beat up your theology'. Much of TT is comprised of 'schoolyard' language.     On the other hand, 'G' possesses the 'gift of concision' ; Bill is an exegete/theologian of the first order, the 'bishop' exemplifies thoughtful passion,
 while 'the David' illustrates the limitations of an extremely smart/talented self-taught person. (Too bad we've lost the likes of Jonathan, Caroline & Debbie) - Original Message -   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: November 24, 2005 00:31  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!   
      - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/22/2005 6:43:33 PM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!ALL I DID WAS ASK A QUESTION?  Do you know what a "question" is Dean?   Do you know what a question is not?   I don't think so.        I could care less about your explanation on
 the use of Mormon underwear.  It makes your ministry look ignorant and ACCOMPLISHES NO GOOD WHATSOEVER for the cause of Christ.   You do so much more harm than any fantasized good and that is probably the reason why so few churches support this kind of street preaching.   In fact,  not a single church here in Fresno or the surrounding area supports this kind of "preaching."    But of course, they are all wrong and you and smudge mouth are right.   Go figure.      cd: This type of preaching has caused fear to fall upon the hearer and lead many to repentance and Christ and salvationnonsense, Dean.   I am not talking about preaching the gospel of Christ  --   I am
 talking about underwear and associated mindless chatter.   You want to get tough and preach in their face --  be my guest.   But when you defend insulting and demeaning tactics, underwear waving and the like  --  you are not talking to someone who is ever going to believe you.   To think that you believe that you can accomplish  good by insulting strangers is almost humorous.      -How is that not good-it has bore the fruit thereof-We have converted Homos-come out and preach to homo with us-We have converted Mormons come out and preach to other Mormons? You are judging too quickly John. Jesus used old
 testament examples so I will use one-nay two.  Isaiah 58 "Cry aloud,spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet,and shew my people their transgressions,and the house of Jacob their sins."God said to do this-I have done so-You tell me it is wrong.  When the prophets of Baal were calling fire from heaven in 1 Kings 18:26-27. v27" And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them..." This is of God John-slow down and listen lest you find yourself fighting against God.      I am not against street preaching, per se.   But there is simply no biblical example of a NT preacher or evangelist who was "in your face"  except on occasion.   The norm is  -  in terms of biblical
 example  -  is quite different.          JD          -Original Message-From: Dean Moore moore@earthlink.net>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:15:08 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!     - Original Message -   From:   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 11/21/2005 11:00:27 PM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!Just asking  ---   who said anything about being drunk?   I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why not chew.  Whatever.       cd: You had mentioned me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to view these holy objects-They are easy to obtain for the local pawn shops as many are getting rid of them. We hold them up and declare that true holiness is to live by the gospel of Christ which is an inner cleanliness not an outer cleanliness. The Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

   Do you make these idiotic statements just to get attention?      He is dancing on Q ->  There is no end to defending myself  -- so I won't get started.   If the context of my statements do not resolve the issues,  nothing else I will say could possibly help.    Please note, however, that nothing in what I said is untrue   --  nothing in what I said is actually refuted.   Elementary recess conversation is all we have here.   :--) Jd Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Lance Muir wrote:  
 How can one person be so consistantly wrong?  Do you make these idiotic statements just to get attention?  No one misses Debbie or Jonathan.  No one understands G.  John doesn't quite know what he believes and Bill has no ability to communicate with anyone who does not have umpteen degrees.   All in all, you are a real flaky bunch.  The temptation is to suggest that you all go somewhere and form your own self admiration society, but then I have to remember that God says to love you anyway, so hang around.  Maybe we can work it out.TerryTo David Miller:    What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which I was getting at re: your visit to 'the
 campus'. I suspect you already know that as we've spoken of it previously.      IMO, this 'conversation' falls into the same category as so many 'exchanges' do on TT. Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter whilst imbedding their comments (I'm not referring to you here, John) with inflammatory language. I once employed the subject 'my theology can beat up your theology'. Much of TT is comprised of 'schoolyard' language.     On the other hand, 'G' possesses the 'gift of concision' ; Bill is an exegete/theologian of the first order, the 'bishop' exemplifies thoughtful passion, while 'the David' illustrates the limitations of an extremely smart/talented self-taught person. (Too bad we've lost the likes of Jonathan, Caroline & Debbie) 
		 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 14




 
 
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:44:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
  Judy,  your belief system is unlike any that I have ever 
  encountered.   You are so quick to critic anything written by those 
  who are on your hit list, yet,  you fellowship a whole church of Calvanists (something you supposedly detest) and 
  have very litle in common with the BSF assembly except 
  attendance.    The uniqueness of your beleif system has God speaking to you differently from anyone 
  else on earth.   And yet you have decided to make a mountain of the 
  mole hill below (the previous post).   
   
  JD you presume too much.  You don't know 
  my belief system so you should be the last to sit in judgment on same. 
  I am not against any ppl especially those 
  who call themselves Calvinists though I see his theology as legalistic 
  and harsh. The Church I attend consists of ppl of all persuasions, Reformed is 
  just what PCA is all about. I also have everything in common with the 
  sisters at BSF and those in every group I've been in for the past four years 
  are close to my heart because contrary to your assumptions what we gather 
  around is the Word of God.
   
  You demand that I answer scripture while ignoring those that I have 
  first  given to you.  Deegan is a master at doing the same thing  --  i,e, 
  the recent "discussion" on the majority text v the minoirity text.  You  resist answering summary 
  questions  (as does Mr Deegan)  
  because your answers  become a matter of record.   
   
  The scriptures you present JD are usually 
  tortured and taken out of context to suit your own personal beliefs, one 
  example would be your dogmatic stand about 'judgment' using what Paul wrote 
  about ppl who do vs those who don't eat meats.
   
  1.  Greek MSS  -  
  you think they are unnecessary , after all we have 
  the [inspired] KJ bible.
  2.  Anyone (except Judy) who uses scholarship to answer a questions 
  has put scholarship before the word.  
   
  3.  The B-I-B-L-E and the "Word of God"  are exactly the same 
  to the exclusion of all other considerations... but B-I--B-L-E  only means 
  KJV 
   
  4.  Original 
  sin is a biblical fact  -  only it is a sin to call it 
  original sin.  
   
  5.  God gives "us" the enlightened truth of scripture  -  but when it comes 
  down to the bottom line, only Judy's enlightenment is correct.  
   
  6.  Adam and Eve were spirit beings, 
  their physical existence changed with the eating of the fruit.  
   
  7.  Calvanism is a cursed sin but it is alright for Judy to fellowship a Calvanist church.
   
  8.  The use of bible translations other than the 
  KJ is wrong -  but the 
  teaching fellowship  (BSF) she 
  attends does not agree with 
  her.   
   
  9.  Christ , in the flesh, was only a 
  representative of God.
   
  10.  The scriptures are "inspired" but who knows 
  what the "correct" definition of "inspiration" really is.
   
  11.  "inspiration" and "revelation" are exactly the same thing.   
   
  12.  A single statement of scripture does not count because of the "two or three 
  witness" rule.   Sorry , God,  I do not have to listen until you tell me at least 
  twice.   
   
  13.  The only difference between the old law and 
  the new law is that God now gives us the ability to practice the [new] 
  law  --  that is what is "new" about the new law !!  
  Forget about the implications of a God who gives a 
  law (the old law) to a people who did not 
  have the ability to practice that law until the new law came along.  
  
   
  The above is not only 
  malarkey JD but this is exactly how 
  heresy begins.  You have no idea what I've been saying all this time 
  because not one out of the above thirteen items is on the mark.
   
  My comments below (?)  --  they express a resolve (on my part) 
  to no longer consider 'your" scriptures when "you" refuse to deal with the 
  scriptures I have first given you.    
   
  So what has changed?  This is what you've 
  been about all along 
   
  Deegan gave me a list of questions (12 or so) and then chided me 
  until I decided to answer them.   He made no comment to my answers 
  and , then refused to answer my questions.   You do  exactly 
  the same with scripture constantly.   It is what your side does 
  best   -    cut and run when the 
  questions become summary in consequence and referential in content while continuing to make fun of the other 
  side for not playing by your rules.   
   
  I presented the following: 
   
  In terms of judgment,  Kevin, what do yo think was going on in Romans 14?   The brothers are called "weak," are 
  they not?   certainly a judgment of some sort.   So Paul 
  in one breath speaks of the "weak"  (read:wrong) and warns against 
  judging the servant of another.   How do you resolve this 
  problem?   and what did I get in 
  response?    Nothing.   
   
  Another big lie JD.  I responded to the 
  above, a fact you e

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




I don't read Rom. 15:16 as indicating "present and ongoing" action even 
though the syntax is the same.  The context causes me to understand "being 
sanctified" very similar to "having been sanctified."  It is only a short 
cut _expression_, kind of like a pronoun-verb contraction.  Thanks for 
sharing this, though.  I now understand your point better.
 
Peace be with you.David Miller.
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 1:23 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  Aw, Bill, you know this passage is not the same.  This is a 
  perfect participle "hegiasmene" not a present passive, so I'm not sure 
  what your point is.
   
  More specifically this is a perfect passive 
  participle, David. I state that very clearly below; moreover, my translation 
  conveys both of these aspects -- i.e., a perfected action in the passive 
  voice: "having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit." My question to you is What 
  do you think about translating a perfected act into an action whose 
  thrust is present and ongoing (cf. "being 
  sanctified")? 
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:46 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor

Aw, Bill, you know this passage is not the same.  This is a 
perfect participle "hegiasmene" not a present passive, so I'm not sure 
what your point is.  
 
David M.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 
  1:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  
  
  Kevin writes  >  please provide some other 
  passages where Sanctification is an "ONGOING EVENT"
   
   
  I do not know of any  -- 
   but   . . .  if you are interested, 
  I can 
  show you an example of the KJV translating a perfect passive (in other 
  words, a completed event) into a present, 
  ongoing state: 
  
Romans 15:16 
"That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, 
ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles 
might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy 
Ghost."
  
  A suggested 
  alternative could be, "having been sanctified by the Holy Ghost." 
   Hey David, what do you think on this one?
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 
10:21 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
corrector/revisor



Kevin writes  >  please provide some other 
passages where Sanctification is an "ONGOING EVENT"
 
I do not know of any  -- 
 but, contrary to Judy's claim, I can show you several that speak 
of the act of our sanctification in the passive voice. Would you 
like to see some of them?
 
Bill
 


I can show you an example of 
the KJV translating a perfect passive (in other words, a completed 
action) into a present, ongoing tense, if you are interested -- 
which, by the way, ought to qualify as another 
mistake. 
Romans 15:16 "That I should be 
the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of 
God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being 
sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
A suggested 
alternative would be, "having been sanctified by the Holy Ghost." 
David, what do you think on this one?
 
Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 1:18-32 and beyond-JD




cd: In verse 28 God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things mentioned in v.29-he takes the gift of understand (discernment) away from those people mentioned in v.27. So then v29 is the result of v.27.
Consider what Adam Clark has to say on the matter:
Rom 1:28 - 
They did not like to retain God - It would, perhaps, be more literal to translate ??? ed???µasa?, They Did Not Search to retain God in their knowledge. They did not examine the evidences before them (Rom_1:19, Rom_1:20) of his being and attributes; therefore God gave them over to a Reprobate mind, e?? ad???µ?? , to an Unsearching or undiscerning mind; for it is the same word in both places. They did not reflect on the proofs they had of the Divine nature, and God abandoned them to the operations of a mind incapable of reflection. How men of such powers and learning, as many of the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets really were, could reason so inconsecutiv
ely concerning things moral and Divine is truly astonishing. But here we see the hand of a just and avenging God; they abused their powers, and God deprived them of the right use of these powers.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Hi Bill.  I appreciate you taking time to 
explain how you differentiate the middle from passive voice in this 
passage.  My point in asking you to review this is to remind us that it 
takes some interpretation on our part concerning context.  Syntax 
alone in this case does not give us the answer.  Therefore, we should 
be cautious about being dogmatic about how this passage should be 
interpreted.

Bill wrote:
> I include "themselves" here because there 
is no other 
> object to receive the action of the verb: 
sanctification. 

Sanctification / Sanctified is NOT the verb.  
Maybe this is what is causing some of the confusion here.

The word "sanctified" is a participle, not a verb, 
which is formed from the verb sanctify.  In the passage, it is used as an 
adjective, not a verb.  The verb in the sentence is "are."  

The participle "sanctified" and the past tense verb 
"sanctified" has the same syntax (they are spelled the same), but one functions 
as an adjective in the sentence while the other would function as a verb in some 
other hypothetical sentence.  It is this similar syntax that has 
apparently confused JD into thinking that the KJV is past tense, and 
perhaps you too. The KJV translates the passage in present tense, not past 
tense.  It does not indicate that our sanctification is complete or not 
complete.  It only indicates that we are sanctified.  Do we agree on 
this?

Peace be with you.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

self admiration society Now that is funny, Thanks for the laughs! Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lance Muir wrote: How can one person be so consistantly wrong? Do you make these idiotic statements just to get attention? No one misses Debbie or Jonathan. No one understands G. John doesn't quite know what he believes and Bill has no ability to communicate with anyone who does not have umpteen
degrees. All in all, you are a real flaky bunch. The temptation is to suggest that you all go somewhere and form your own self admiration society, but then I have to remember that God says to love you anyway, so hang around. Maybe we can work it out.TerryTo David Miller: What BJ (Bishop John) said herein is that which I was getting at re: your visit to 'the campus'. I suspect you already know that as we've spoken of it previously. IMO, this 'conversation' falls into the same category as so many 'exchanges' do on TT. Persons just share polarized opinions of a matter whilst imbedding their comments (I'm not referring to
you here, John) with inflammatory language. I once employed the subject 'my theology can beat up your theology'. Much of TT is comprised of 'schoolyard' language. On the other hand, 'G' possesses the 'gift of concision' ; Bill is an exegete/theologian of the first order, the 'bishop' exemplifies thoughtful passion, while 'the David' illustrates the limitations of an extremely smart/talented self-taught person. (Too bad we've lost the likes of Jonathan, Caroline & Debbie)
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Bill wrote:
> Sure, a present tense verb conveys an action that
> is not yet complete; in other words, it is not yet a
> past tense. As I said before, it is unfortunate that
> the KJV misled you here, understandable though
> it may be, but now you need to move on to accepting
> that the original language posits this participle as a
> present passive.

Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete action.  If I say, 
"Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his 
happiness.

The KJV translates the Heb. 10:14 passage as "are sanctified," which is a 
present passive construction, just like the Greek.  It has not misled 
anyone.  It is the reader who might be misled by whatever he reads into the 
syntax used.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

2005-11-24 Thread Terry Clifton





How tacky!

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  
  
  You know I'll tell! :-) 
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave
  Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 1:17 AM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
  
  
DAVEH:  Do you really think it is appropriate to discuss such personal
things on a public forum that is known for its lack of taste at times? 
If you really want to know the answer to personal questions such as
that, contact me off-Forum and I'll answer your question.
  
ShieldsFamily wrote:
  

So DO you??? 


 


I’ve read
that you’re supposed to leave them on then, too.

DAVEH:   That is not my understanding, nor would I think anybody else
(LDS) understands it that way.  Howeverit is not a topic I've
discussed with others, nor have I ever heard it discussed in any LDS
meetings I've attended or in other official discussions.

    There are numerous instances where it is not appropriate to wear
them, viz., playing basketball, swimming, etc.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  

  
  
  How about
during sex, DaveH? I’ve read that you’re supposed to leave them on
then, too.  True or false? izzy
  
  
  
   
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  On Behalf Of Dave
Hansen
  Sent: Wednesday,
November 23, 2005 1:31 AM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
  
  
  The
Mormons have to leave them on even while taking a bath-They slide them
to one side and wash one half of their bodies at a time.
  
DAVEH:   Hmmm.I continue to learn by my presence on TT.  
That's one I haven't tried yet, Dean!    :-D 
  
    Note to Perry:   Like I said, I'm here to learn what Protestants
(and Dean, if he isn't a P) believe.  If nothing else, learning that
you folks believe such things as this is a constant form of
entertainment!   :-) 
  
Dean Moore wrote: 
  




Just asking  ---  
who said anything about being drunk?   I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why
not chew.  Whatever.  





cd: You had mentioned
me "sobering up" before- I don't chew tobacco-And the Mormons claim
that their underwear is Holy-a sign of their royal Melchizedek
Priesthood which is worn under their clothing as we are not worthy to
view these holy objects-They are easy to obtain for the local pawn
shops as many are getting rid of them. We hold them up and declare that
true holiness is to live by the gospel of Christ which is an inner
cleanliness not an outer cleanliness. The Mormons have to leave
them on even while taking a bath-They slide them to one side and wash
one half of their bodies at a time.




  
  

  
  
  
  -- 
 ~~~
 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] corrector/revisor