Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..seems to follow the Mosaic notion/rendering 'I am that I am' presupposg (a) loving knowable humanity present in (a) power beyond human[ity], almost to the point of non-human[ity] producing natural fear factor (aborted in ignorance:) On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:13:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes about: three persons [of one God]..
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..seems to follow the Mosaic notion/rendering 'I am that I am' presupposg (a) loving knowable humanity present in (a) power beyond human[ity], almost to the point of non-human[ity] generating an appropriate fear factor On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:13:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: three persons [of one God]
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Judy, I am not going to discuss with you anymore. I am tired, after two years, of the constant argument. As regards myself, your only purpose is to oppose anything I say. Things like this: You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. do not come from the spirit of God. I already know your response -- almost word for word, so why bother? anyway -- you and I are done. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about him often enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about preaching and teaching. The Words he spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were the Fathers. All of them were anointed by the Spirit of God and these are what drew the people. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd I agree that it does not explain the diety. While He was without the glory he had with the Father, having set it aside before coming to earth and inhabiting a body of flesh Jesus was not joined at the hip with the Father. Why did he get up early every day and pray to Him? Why did he make the statement in John 14 that "the Father is greater" if they are one and the same? No they are unified in purpose as the Godhead but are not always the same.
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Catholics and Idols (to Dean)
No offense taken. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 4:10:54 PM Subject: Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Catholics and Idols (to Dean) Dean, Don't get me wrong, here. I do not believe the Catholic Church speaks for God. I am talking about the members (that I know, personally) and not the RCC. Maybe I cannot argue this point without appearing to be supportive of Catholicism. cd: I think you could if you established a clear separation for you friends as opposed to the RCC fallible beliefs in you argument-which you are beginning to do. When you speak of the Pope forgiving sins -- it helps me, at least, to understand that the Pope or the prient in confession is an extension of the grace of God in Christ. The doctrine that surrounds that consideration flies in the face of a persoanl relationship with Christ (for some) and is considered to be wrong (by me) for that reason among others. but I do not see correctness in any church. cd: Then I would suggest one looks to the fruit of sin-and attempt to resist that sin for correctness to appear-this is what all men of God have done throughout the bible. If they fail to heed the truth-go on as God leads and attempt to help others. Lot who was a preacher of righteousness didn't have much help in the form of a church in Sodom yet he was at the gates of the city to do good when the angelic being appeared to destroy the city for sin's sake. Is Lot stronger than a Saint? On a different note-Jesus Christ rent the vail that separated the common man from the Holies of Holies so the only high Priest I need as a mediator between me and God is Christ. I also agree that we are to confess our sin one to another within the body of Christ as to have others pray for us but to establish another Priesthood for this work is wrong in my opinion as we already belong to the Highest order of the Priesthood-The Melchisedec Priesthood. The RCC PriestHood is in my opinion after the order of Aaron and as such is ; ;faulty ( Greedy men have also wanted a position between man and God). Consider this -is it al right to do wrong ( incorrectness) because others do -No? Then on the same token I will not accept a sinful (incorrect) Church because other churches are sinful Churches-There are many Churches that are not sinful (correct) as the Gates of Hell did not prevail against Christ church. For me sometimes a church isn't the building but " where two or more are gathered in my name then I am in their mists"- Jesus Christ. Just my opinion for what that is worth :-) On Christmas eve, here in the Central Valley, one of the priest gave a talk on the Catholic TV station. It was great !! If you closed your eyes, you would have no idea whether the speaker was Evangelical Free or Lutheran or Baptist. I am not suggesting that this absolves any of the issues of Catholic doctrine, but I am suggesting that this illustrates that Christ is at the center of that church for those within its membership who are devoted to Chrsit. Not one word of the Pope, of the "right chruch," of Catholicisn as a preference over other churches. No,. Rather, this TV discussion was in honor of Christ. The RCC is the quintessential "works salvationist" Christian Church. Restitution is a big deal to the Catholic. It might be somewhat of a surprise to the reader, but the Catholic church no longer burns objectors. my degree came from a Catholic school and I can attest to the fact that there is a great deal of debate within the RCC and it ranges from the authority of the Pope to the liturgy tradition (i.e. English mass or Latin) . cd: I wish I could have also heard the Priest on Central Valley-I love correct preaching.John is it possible that your view of Idols and God hatred could have been influenced by your teaching derived from the RCC which hold a weak stance on this subject. I have learned from my studies that our environment has an huge impact on what we believe. Once in New Orleans a young black women came up to me and said " I see no nothing wrong with what these Homosexuals are doing " .John these sodomites were on their knees in front of other man in the streets giving oral sex to each other while a RCC member was complaining that her yg girls were seeing this and thanked me for being there to stand up against this sin and told the police to leave me alone-because at lease I am doing something. The office told her that if she move there with her yg girls then she should expect things like this to happen. The women then told the officer that she had lived there before Southern Decedence was an event and that he should be doing his Job not stopping us from helping. The young black women saw no wrong because hers environment was such that this behavior was accepted as the norm. I suggest you have also been
Re: [TruthTalk] Mardi Gras (Dean)
No pressure. I am just going to ignore it !! :-) The day you see me in an airplane is the day John Madden becomes a pilot. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 8:21:04 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mardi Gras (Dean) Dean, I do not fly and I live way out here on the left coast. If N.O. were within 8-10 hours, I would do it. I am hoping to come out to see G and Bill in the late spring. Maybe we could at least get together then. jd cd: I understand and look forwards to spring-Flying for me is the same as getting on a bus. Consider Paul and the dangerous travels he partook for God. I would rather die trying to do Christ work then live safe. How is that for pressure:-) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 4:22:45 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) Hmm - that not a bad a idea!! cd: John/ Bill Pray on this matter and in a few day give me you answer as I will have to give a head count-you will be with us and we will care for you as brothers. I would like to know more about "Baxter and the boys"-Bill mentioned us going to learn from them? Be aware that Mardi Gras is a week long event but some preachers do not stay the full time-you choice.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mardi Gras
Central Valley. .. near Fresno jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 8:24:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mardi Gras I missed this post. Or at least we can meet ,grab a meal and talk. Two against one sounds good to me !! I am kidding (about the two on one) but not about the fellowship. Let's figure out a way to make it work. jThere are some preachers that come from California they could have a suggestion-Where again is you location? -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'll tell you what, Dean: I would be willing to endure :>) a couple days with street preachers if you would be willing to do the same with us and our like. Baxter Kreuger is a professor friend who lives in Jackson and has a ministry down there. We (John and I) were planning on going down again to visit him this year -- it's kind of an annual thing we've got going, this being the second :>) so if it would work out on your end -- a couple days in Jackson -- then maybe we could plan from ours to do the same with a couple in N.O. with you. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Mardi Gras - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 4:22:45 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) Hmm - that not a bad a idea!! cd: John/ Bill Pray on this matter and in a few day give me you answer as I will have to give a head count-you will be with us and we will care for you as brothers. I would like to know more about "Baxter and the boys"-Bill mentioned us going to learn from them? Be aware that Mardi Gras is a week long event but some preachers do not stay the full time-you choice. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Judy, could you answr this question from Dean? Good-I understood you to believe this sister Judy-But what I am having trouble distinguishing is what is the difference between what you and John are debating? The passage in question clearly shows the Character of the father so someone (not sure who) simple put father in the place of those characteristics-to wit both of you have stated this fact .I am not saying anyone should be so bold as to do such-and in time I may see deeper into why they should not have done so-but at the present have no problem as I do not see any real change from the words the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. I find it interesting that your use of the NASV would put you at odd with John who is actually spending energy to show that the KJ has some changes in it to encourage the use of the NASV. Tell me what are the main points of difference between you and John on this subject? I must be missing something. Thanks sis. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 10:12:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe in the same thing Dean only I call it the Godhead rather than "trinity" because Godhead is what it is named in scripture. I don't deny there is a Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit. judyt cd: Good-I understood you to believe this sister Judy-But what I am having trouble distinguishing is what is the difference between what you and John are debating? The passage in question clearly shows the Character of the father so someone (not sure who) simple put father in the place of those characteristics-to wit both of you have stated this fact .I am not saying anyone should be so bold as to do such-and in time I may see deeper into why they should not have done so-but at the present have no problem as I do not see any real change from the words the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. I find it interesting that your use of the NASV would put you at odd with John who is actually spending energy to show that the KJ has some changes in it to encourage the use of the NASV. Tell me what are the main points of difference between you and John on this subject? I must be missing something. Thanks sis. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:59:26 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know about boundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon)
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Yeah, the one God changes expressions or manifestations of himself, from the Father, to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit -- and sometimes back again, and back and forth. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Modalism -- One God, three manifestations which is different from three persons. That's how I remember the above -- correct? jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Some analogies are better than others. None are fully adequate. It is probably best to stay away from ones which tend toward modalism. Just my opinion, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this explanation. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God" When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they,
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? That is good, Judy. And yes I do remember that. Why then do you make such an issue out of Jesus' statement that the Father was greater than he? Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth I was only trying to be respectful of your position, Judy. Just yesterday you criticized the early fathers for not being able to fully understand the incarnation, pointing to "the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who will lead us into ALL Truth." [emphasis your own] Do you see why I might misunderstand you from time to time? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Just a civil, respectful approach would be much appreciated Though she writes as one who knows all truth, Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Sorry Bill you are not the One I had in mind . Anyway, till next time,Bill --"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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Modalism -- One God, three manifestations which is different from three persons. That's how I remember the above -- correct? jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Some analogies are better than others. None are fully adequate. It is probably best to stay away from ones which tend toward modalism. Just my opinion, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this explanation. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God" When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
[TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's,and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you havebeen arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed herperspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been askingquestions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. Sure you are Bill; you are constantly trying to set me up with your questions and whatever answer I come up with is never good enough, never the right one so far as you are concerned.. This is not what I call dialogue On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead,"Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her avery specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the windingroad yet again. I believe he has equal status in the Godhead with the other two members. God is ONE - remember? By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Just a civil, respectful approach would be much appreciated Though she writes as one who knows all truth, Correction, she writes as one who knows the One who knows all truth she is ignorant of most of this and needsto be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Sorry Bill you are not the One I had in mind . Anyway, till next time,Bill --"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: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Good it was of some use. jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hope all goes well with your schooling, Christine. Till next time, Bill - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Hello Bill,Thank you for the invitation, but I am not posting regularly on TT because of my school work. I am enjoying this subject, though. Jesus' role in the Godhead is an important topic, and I am hungry to learn more. (JD: I really enjoyed the list of Biblical references you posted a little while ago, and I have saved them for future reference.) -ChristineTaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... I learn very much from Judy's posts. Good, then perhaps you could explain to us Judy's understanding of God (the makeup of the Trinity or "Godhead") and Christ (the nature of his divinity and humanity), because the rest of us have been reading her for a long time and every time we think we understand something, she abruptly changes her position -- or so it seems. I'm all ears, Bill - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Debbie wrote:She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote:She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded.-ChristineLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it!-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it!-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Hey Judy, I'm thinking that you've overlooked this one. Will you please answer my questions: I promise to be kinder and gentler in my responses :>) Pretty please? If that answer does not satisfy you Bill then it was not a "simple" question. Fair enough, then [please] answer a tough question: When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, and was he the divine Christ before that time? I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) jt DavidM -- you might take to heart the words of Miz Judy above next time you see fit to blame her attitude on anyone other than herself. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Humble apologies profered for messing up the scenario in Acts 9:3,4 - he fell to the ground but it may not have been off a donkey - do you know for a fact that he was walking "G" Did he have a horse? Is this an important part of your orthodoxy G? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..& that she simultaneously re-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., there is no donkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
..actually, James
also tells us Who to "ask", exclusively, Bro
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:27:43 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth ("God..giveth to all men liberally . . . " ,
but
not necessarily wisdom, Bro;
when you're
actually interested in that, James says "ask")
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:18:40 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 1/8/2006 2:06:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone walking in the fear of God would
be aware that he needs to clean up his own backyard
before lamenting the fate of
others. Excluding ministry gifts of course - but
I don't see travelling
minstrels listed among
them.
Blainerb: "If any of ye
lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally . . .
"
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..it's her Word against His 'word' (KJV) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:45:03 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..& that she simultaneously re-writes James defending an erroneous notion of authority, that her's, unlike the apostles', is of a piece with God's, a monstrous implication encompassed in sponsoring 'greater revelation' than the Lord's On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..& that she simultaneously re-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., there is no donkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
RE: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S
Dean, I was wondering. How do you put something in a hole that is larger than the hole? From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:39:35 -0500 In the Mountains of Western North Carolina, where I live, the old timers used to hunt Raccoons in a most peculiar way. They would cut a hole in a box or a section of a log and put an object (usually something shiny such as rock or ball) into the hole, that was larger than the hole, and the raccoon would reach into the hole ,grasp the object and attempt to withdraw it from the hole, but due to the objects size would be unable to do so and because the raccoon wouldn't release the object he would become trapped and lose his fur and his life. But man on the other hand was created in the image of Almighty God, who is very creative, would not be trapped in such a manner-we would simply release the object and try some other method of getting this prize. Here on TT I see many "raccoons" becoming trapped for lack of creativity as they expect different results from the same approach-which is error. I highly recommend trying a different approach so as to use the nature God gave us.I am not suggesting compromise by any means- but to have fun using creativity as the catalyst for that fun. He that has an ear let him hear. Yours in Christ, Carroll D Moore. -- "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] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..& that she simultaneously re-writes James defending an erroneous notion of authority, that her's, unlike the apostles', is of a piece with God's, a monstrous implication encompassed in sponsoring 'greater revelation' than the Lord's On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..& that she simultaneously re-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., there is no donkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Blainerb: You may have a point there, David--the value of the property being offered to the city by the LDS Church was no small amount (but it is conjectural only). Rocky gave his reasons, which appeared in print and on TV several times, and included were his personal experiences watching SPs on the Plaza--he also expressed fears that such would get worse, not better. His interest was mainly in bringing the divergent groups in the city together in a compromise situation, and the fact that the LDS Church sweetened that situation was only part of the deal. He maintained that the bottom line was the behavior of the SPs--he was clearly afraid of that sort of thing creating more divisiveness, which, more than anything,would pose a threat to his continuance as Mayor of the city--so, it had political overtones, I guess you might say, as well. Let's face it, SPs were not popular even among those opposed to the Plaza. In a message dated 1/8/2006 6:02:24 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine, if money were not involved, don't you think the outcome would have been a bit different? Follow the money, Blaine. The love of money is the root of all evil. The Mormons supplied the money. The city leaders took it. Think about it.Peace be with you.David Miller.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:48 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & FreemasonryIn a message dated 1/8/2006 8:30:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous?Blainerb: Answer, but from Blaine, not Judy: NO!! :>) Street Preachers do more harm than good--that is the consensus of opinion, at least among the more righteous preachers of traditional Christianity. Even Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City Mayor, a former ACLU Attorney, was turned off by the insolent behavior of the street preachers. He finally sided with the LDS Church on the Plaza issue, mainly because of the SPs.--"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
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
[Y]ou guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's, and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you have been arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed her perspective. Well, David, I am not one of the "you guys" you mention, as I've been asking questions and weighing her answers in view of things she's stated elsewhere. On the question of the nature of Christ and his status in the "Godhead," Judy has been quite elusive and, when not, contradictory. I've asked her a very specific question. We'll see if she addresses it or takes the winding road yet again. By the way, you're right about the kinder, gentler approach. Though she writes as one who knows all truth, she is ignorant of most of this and needs to be taught and brought along with patience. I'll try to be better. Anyway, till next time, Bill -- "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] Mormonism & Freemasonry
myth ("God..giveth to all men liberally . . . " ,
but not
necessarily wisdom, Bro;
when you're
actually interested in that, James says "ask")
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:18:40 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 1/8/2006 2:06:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone walking in the fear of God would be
aware that he needs to clean up his own backyard
before lamenting the fate of
others. Excluding ministry gifts of course - but I
don't see travelling
minstrels listed among
them.
Blainerb: "If any of ye
lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally . . .
"
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..to teach Scripture plus 'greater revelation', as below, requires deception, ladies On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:12:41 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..are you into anti-Incarnational greater revelation, too? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:08:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..even while she's expansive--where expansive-ness cloaks her anti-Incarnational reduction On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
In a message dated 1/8/2006 2:06:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Someone walking in the fear of God would be aware that he needs to clean up his own backyard before lamenting the fate of others. Excluding ministry gifts of course - but I don't see travelling minstrels listed among them. Blainerb: "If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally . . . "
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Not hardly. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 5:55 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry BT said this? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 19:53:10 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:29:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? ||-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..are you into anti-Incarnational greater revelation, too? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:08:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..even while she's expansive--where expansive-ness cloaks her anti-Incarnational reduction On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] FW: January 6 - The Delusions of 2005 ("deny the power thereo...
Blainerb: Where is smoke, there is usually a little fire. What
these "outsiders" are saying is probably based on truth to some extent--whether
perceived by outsiders or no. I had a German exchange student living with
me for a year--he said the Germans seldom go to church, and when they do, they
wear casual clothing and cutoffs, sometimes even flip-flops.
As his dad told me once, "Nobody in Germany believes in the 'Yesus' story
anymore."
In a message dated 1/8/2006 12:52:28 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EVERY REFORM MOVEMENT utilizes less than lauditory speech concerning
those not themselves part of the 'reform'.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 07, 2006 18:47
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] FW: January 6
- The Delusions of 2005 ("deny the power thereof")
Blainerb: Rev Jan Markell has
it right (see below)--more evidence of truth of the warning from God to
Joseph Smith: "They teach for doctrine the commandments of men, having
a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof."
In a message dated 1/7/2006 2:18:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
January
6 - The Delusions of 2005
·
The church will save the world and make it perfect for
Christ's return (Dominion/Kingdom Now Theology). Reality
check: Many churches are not even preaching a sound gospel.
They are preaching a bloodless gospel to
fill up the pews and false doctrine is exploding as
predicted.
·
We're in the "last days" and churches are encouraging their
flock to get right with God while there is still time. Reality
check: Visit most any church in
America and you
will not hear the wonderful news that Jesus is coming
soon.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..even while she's expansive--where expansive-ness cloaks her anti-Incarnational reduction On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)
In a message dated 1/8/2006 12:51:44 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine: I have an audio tape, surreptitiously obtained, of the then prophet (1978) describing the 'revelation' (political decision) to permit non-whites into the priesthood. I was present in a hospital waiting room when the announcement was made, and I remember it well. But thanks anyway. Blainer
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..& that she simultaneously re-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., there is no donkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)
Blainerb: The decision to allow Blacks the PH was made after weeks and even months of agonizing prayer and discussion, which prayer and discussion followed the great success Mormon missionaries were having in Africa. The decision was made solely on the basis of desire to include worthy Black males from that continent in the on-going work of the Lord--mostly missionary work, but other aspects as well. The Mormon Priesthood has always been a lay priesthood, and it was necessary to get those Blacks busy taking care of their own, rather than having White men exercising dominion over them. In a message dated 1/8/2006 12:51:44 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine: I have an audio tape, surreptitiously obtained, of the then prophet (1978) describing the 'revelation' (political decision) to permit non-whites into the priesthood. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 07, 2006 18:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob) Blainerb: What John and brother Moore have written below is the crux of what God meant when he told Joseph Smith that the Protestant ministers of the day taught doctrines of men, which had a form of Godliness, but denied the Power thereof. In other words, they denied the "greater revelation," or the possibility of "greater revelation" than that contained in the Bible. This will turn to their ultimate condemnation, in the great hereafter, because God has all power--and is the same today, yesterday, and forever--including having the right and ability to give forth "greater revelation." If the ministers of Protestant religion do not repent of this prideful stubbornness, then I am thinking one of the most immediate consequences will be for God to empower the Remnant of Jacob to go through, and destroy the wonderful civilization that has been built up over the past two hundred years called the US of A. Those Mexicans, most of whom are descendants of the Aztecs, who by the way worshipped Quetzalquatl, who was described as being a White God who wore a white robe and a beard, just keep coming over the border, don't they? Despite efforts to stay them, and the prophecy contained in 3 Nephi of the BoM creeps closer and closer to being fulfilled every day. I hope when it happens, the "Remnant" will by then have recognized the LDS Church as something other than a "White Guy's" church. There is already evidence this is true. The Navajo language has two words for White men: Biligana, which is a derisive term, meaning something like, "White Enemy," and another term which simply means "White brother." The latter is usually applied to members of the LDS Church. I spent three years teaching Dine' (Navajos) in Southern Utah, and I know that among them are many who have adopted the Black man's symbol for Black Power--a raised, gloved hand--except the fingers of the glove have been cut off, allowing the red man's fingers to show through at the end of the glove, apparently symbolizing the Red Power Movement that has grown from the Black Power Movement. You Protestant cowboys might do well to strap on your six-shooters, 'cause I believe the day will soon come when the game we played as little kids--Cowboys and Indians--may become a nightmarish reality . . .
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Blaine, if money were not involved, don't you think the outcome would have been a bit different? Follow the money, Blaine. The love of money is the root of all evil. The Mormons supplied the money. The city leaders took it. Think about it. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry In a message dated 1/8/2006 8:30:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous? Blainerb: Answer, but from Blaine, not Judy: NO!! :>) Street Preachers do more harm than good--that is the consensus of opinion, at least among the more righteous preachers of traditional Christianity. Even Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City Mayor, a former ACLU Attorney, was turned off by the insolent behavior of the street preachers. He finally sided with the LDS Church on the Plaza issue, mainly because of the SPs. -- "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] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
BT said this? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 19:53:10 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:29:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Bill wrote: > ... the rest of us have been reading her for a long > time and every time we think we understand > something, she abruptly changes her position -- > or so it seems. I had to chuckle a little on this statement. Some are critical that Judy never seems to change from her position, and here you say that she keeps changing her position. For what it's worth, I have been reading Judy for a long time too, and I have not seen her change her perspective too much. That does not mean that she is not learning, but rather that she has some formed opinions and has the integrity not to be swayed about with every wind of doctrine that comes along. From my perspective, you guys keep constructing straw men arguments, claiming they are her's, and then when it finally comes out that she doesn't believe what you have been arguing all along that she believes, you think she has changed her perspective. It is not Judy that has changed, but your categorization of her that has changed. I cannot help but think of the Scripture, "he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." Concerning the Godhead, it seems clear to me that she accepts the Trinity concept, but does not like using the word "Trinity" because, a) it is not a Biblical word, b) it has different meanings to different people, c) if she is going to have a good understanding of the term, she will have to study outside the Bible, d) why spend the time studying outside the Bible when everything she needs to know about the Godhead is in the Bible... I hope you get the picture. That is my "read" of Judy, but I could be wrong. If I were to classify her Godhead viewpoint, I could say that she is Trinitarian with a very strong bent toward Sebellianism. I have held this view of her theology of the Godhead of years. I wish I could help her undersatnd the role of the humanity of Christ in salvation, and help her understand the Incarnation better, but I fear that some on the forum have created within her such a distaste for the word "Incarnation" that it would be a little difficult to do right now. By the way, the reason for your questions to her are apparent to me because of my historical and theological reading, but I don't think they register the same with her. This is why she tends not to answer at times. The questions appear unrelated and out in left field to her. You treat her as if she were a professor with a heretical bent rather than a faithful servant of the Most High who has not had the formal training that you have had. I think it is possible for you to teach with more gentleness, meekness, and patience towards her. One more comment: ideology is not always meant to be boxed up in a nice little package. Perhaps we should not try so hard to do that with one another. If relationship is more important than ideas, if persons have priority over ideas (as Debbie articulated recently), then work on that a little more and then bring in the other. It seems to me that Dean has been doing that recently. Don't you guys like the "new" Dean? Don't you become more open to hearing him as you find that there is some common ground between you? Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 6:44 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) ... I learn very much from Judy's posts. Good, then perhaps you could explain to us Judy's understanding of God (the makeup of the Trinity or "Godhead") and Christ (the nature of his divinity and humanity), because the rest of us have been reading her for a long time and every time we think we understand something, she abruptly changes her position -- or so it seems. I'm all ears, Bill - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Debbie wrote: She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote: She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded. -Christine Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes d
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:29:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? No. I was saying your doing that was, ahem, a little suspect, is all. Blainerb
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
verilysaid, very well hedged On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:35:35 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy.. I need to be more like you in that respect. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
In a message dated 1/8/2006 8:30:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous? Blainerb: Answer, but from Blaine, not Judy: NO!! :>) Street Preachers do more harm than good--that is the consensus of opinion, at least among the more righteous preachers of traditional Christianity. Even Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City Mayor, a former ACLU Attorney, was turned off by the insolent behavior of the street preachers. He finally sided with the LDS Church on the Plaza issue, mainly because of the SPs.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)
Blainerb: The Lord's words never cease--he is the same yesterday, today and forever. Look in your Bible. The words of the Lord never ceased, except to fulfill the prophecy of Amos 8:11 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." This happened during the dark ages, when even the written word was in a dead language--Latin--and the only prophecies heard were those made by astrologers and the like--from uninspired lips. But as the scriptures were translated into native languages and were printed for the masses, the famine began to come to an end. But when more of the word of the Lord than what had been theretofore printed came to light, the preachers of the day rejected it--"A Bible, A Bible, we have a Bible and we need no more Bible," they said, and they continue to say it today. They say it for gain. The Lord's work, which like his word never ceases, does not pay well if the clergy are laymen, which they are in the Lord's church, and which they were in the original church. They went out without purse or script--no money, no big salaries. You are a deceived people. You are deceived by your ministers, who preach for gain. In a message dated 1/8/2006 8:07:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Certainly not greater than what Christ has given- from the mouth of another? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 6:10:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob) Blainerb: What John and brother Moore have written below is the crux of what God meant when he told Joseph Smith that the Protestant ministers of the day taught doctrines of men, which had a form of Godliness, but denied the Power thereof. In other words, they denied the "greater revelation," or the possibility of "greater revelation" than that contained in the Bible. This will turn to their ultimate condemnation, in the great hereafter, because God has all power--and is the same today, yesterday, and forever--including having the right and ability to give forth "greater revelation."
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Judy, you are a blessing to me. Today in church, the pastor taught from Mat. 7:7. And he said that the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven is to persevere, how the greek of "Knock and it shall be opened" is actually translated "Keep on knocking and it shall be opened." I admire your thick skin and your fighting spirit, Judy. I need to be more like you in that respect. After slander and anger have chased many away from TT, I am glad to lurk and read your posts. -ChristineJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Christine - What a blessing you are, a breath of fresh air The apple doesn't fall far from the tree On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:14:24 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Debbie wrote:She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote:She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded.-ChristineLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JDYahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it! Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
myth (evidence suggests you are interested in re-writing it existentially) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:19:53 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I am really interested in..the Word of God
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
myth (mother Mary matters, M'am) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. || ..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Hope all goes well with your schooling, Christine. Till next time, Bill - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Hello Bill,Thank you for the invitation, but I am not posting regularly on TT because of my school work. I am enjoying this subject, though. Jesus' role in the Godhead is an important topic, and I am hungry to learn more. (JD: I really enjoyed the list of Biblical references you posted a little while ago, and I have saved them for future reference.) -ChristineTaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... I learn very much from Judy's posts. Good, then perhaps you could explain to us Judy's understanding of God (the makeup of the Trinity or "Godhead") and Christ (the nature of his divinity and humanity), because the rest of us have been reading her for a long time and every time we think we understand something, she abruptly changes her position -- or so it seems. I'm all ears, Bill - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Debbie wrote:She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote:She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded.-ChristineLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it!-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it!-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Hello Bill,Thank you for the invitation, but I am not posting regularly on TT because of my school work. I am enjoying this subject, though. Jesus' role in the Godhead is an important topic, and I am hungry to learn more. (JD: I really enjoyed the list of Biblical references you posted a little while ago, and I have saved them for future reference.) -Christine Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... I learn very much from Judy's posts. Good, then perhaps you could explain to us Judy's understanding of God (the makeup of the Trinity or "Godhead") and Christ (the nature of his divinity and humanity), because the rest of us have been reading her for a long time and every time we think we understand something, she abruptly changes her position -- or so it seems. I'm all ears, Bill - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 4:14 PMSubject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)Debbie wrote:She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote:She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded.-ChristineLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JDYahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it!-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and well bind it!
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
... I learn very much from Judy's posts. Good, then perhaps you could explain to us Judy's understanding of God (the makeup of the Trinity or "Godhead") and Christ (the nature of his divinity and humanity), because the rest of us have been reading her for a long time and every time we think we understand something, she abruptly changes her position -- or so it seems. I'm all ears, Bill - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Debbie wrote:She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote:She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded.-ChristineLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it!-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Christine - What a blessing you are, a breath of fresh air The apple doesn't fall far from the tree On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:14:24 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Debbie wrote:She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote:She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded.-ChristineLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcoverPhoto Books. You design it and well bind it!
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Debbie wrote: She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere.You do not speak for all, Debbie. And I take offense at your comments here. I learn very much from Judy's posts. I cannot speak for Judy, but I believe she is learning much from her pressence here--I know I do--as TT is a great forum to hear new ideas. Debbie wrote: She should not be participating in such a forum at all.I suspect that such a sentiment is not Judy's problem, but your own. The aim of communication and debate does not have to be agreement. TT is a place to air out ideas. Just because one member of TT isn't as responsive as you would like her to be does not make her ideas unvalid. Your statement was condescending and closed-minded.-Christine Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and well bind it!
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
If that answer does not satisfy you Bill then it was not a "simple" question. Fair enough, then answer a tough question: When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, and was he the divine Christ before that time? I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time?
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
It is not this kind of thing that runs you off early Bill; in fact I get the idea that you kind of like this. Being by nature a competitive type of person. It is when we discuss what I am really interested in which is the Word of God that you get your ball and go home. Right now you are not open to anything other than tweaking me. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:23:18 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You criticize me for going home early. Don't complain when I stay: this is all any of your discussions ever amount to. Bill From: Taylor I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy -- but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I am simply modeling you, my teacher. From: Judy Taylor None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, the
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
Yeah Judy, I will admit, I'm feeling sort of smarmy. What must it like being this way all the time? I am so thankful I don't know. Anyway, I think I've made my point. I'll leave you with any last words. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:07 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic Who set me up as your teacher - certainly not me? Whats more this is a lie - You should be ashamed of yourself Bill Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:11:45 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy -- but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I am simply modeling you, my teacher. From: Judy Taylor None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes yo
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
You criticize me for going home early. Don't complain when I stay: this is all any of your discussions ever amount to. Bill - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy -- but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I am simply modeling you, my teacher. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
Who set me up as your teacher - certainly not me? Whats more this is a lie - You should be ashamed of yourself Bill Taylor On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:11:45 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy -- but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I am simply modeling you, my teacher. From: Judy Taylor None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
I am fine with being responsible for what I say, Judy -- but when it comes to being bitter, and angry, and calling names, I am simply modeling you, my teacher. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
None of what you are saying has anything to do with me You are completely and totally responsible for your own words... (and the attitude behind them) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:02:11 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
This must be an aberrent type I don't know, Judy. I've always thought it all aberrant. I'm just using what I've learned from you. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
I've read books on "tough love" and none ever included bitterness and name calling. This must be an aberrent type On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:53:10 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: Judy Taylor Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Lance you are doing it again; if Debbie Sawczak is so interested in what I am saying and doing then why doesn't she join the list and put in her two cents? .. Don't answer that, I guess she doesn't need to when she has you to do it for her - but you seeking out her opinion is a complete and utter waste of time. I am speaking about things that she obviously can not relate to and has no understanding about though she obviously believes her opinion to be valuable. Also I have yet to see Debbie Sawczak (your expert witness) involved in dialogue herself. Most of what you post from her are essay kind of things in which she shares her impressions and they are totally one sided. What is one to say? "Oh that's nice?" What is your purpose in sending her opinions about me to TT? I'm certainly not requesting her counsel. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:01:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... I know what Spirit I am of. and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) You have more in common with Augustine than I. Where's the love??? You don't see the love, Judy? This is that tough love you are always spouting. One would think it recognizable -- you being so familiar with it yourself. Bill On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
Methinks you know not what spirit you are of ... and you have undoubtedly become just like your teachers ... (Augustine, Athanasius et al) Where's the love??? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:54:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill From: Judy Taylor You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
If that answer does not satisfy you Bill then it was not a "simple" question. You seem to have some axe to grind and come across as a very angry man. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:24:48 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. From: Judy Taylor I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about him often enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
And I believe that you can't answer a simple question. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about him often enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords Head of the Church which is His body Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:42:55 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill From: Judy Taylor Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about him often enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and C
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
ROTFL!!! On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:46:44 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: this isn't a Rock band? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:28:19 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Baxter Kruger..and the "dancing trinity"
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Someone walking in the fear of God would be aware that he needs to clean up his own backyard before lamenting the fate of others. Excluding ministry gifts of course - but I don't see travelling minstrels listed among them. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:55:20 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Er, uh no, as a matter of fact, I was wondering why you were passing judgement on poor ol' Dylan? :>) Maybe you are wrong about the poor fella. He might have his faults, but don't we all? Blaine In a message dated 1/8/2006 3:11:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day.
Re: [TruthTalk] Kevin Deegan??
Thanks--that answers my question, but raises some also-- :>) Blaine In a message dated 1/8/2006 7:22:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Kevin is still around but got tired of the insults and doesn't contribute much.Shame as he had a lot to offer. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 12:48:08 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Kevin Deegan?? I guess I missed something--whatever happened to Deegan, my ol' sparring buddy? I got really far behind, so instead of reading a lot of the posts, I deleted like crazy--probably did not answer some posts as well as missing out on what happened to him. Blainerb
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Er, uh no, as a matter of fact, I was wondering why you were passing judgement on poor ol' Dylan? :>) Maybe you are wrong about the poor fella. He might have his faults, but don't we all? Blaine In a message dated 1/8/2006 3:11:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
this isn't a Rock band? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:28:19 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Baxter Kruger..and the "dancing trinity"
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
... when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted ... I do not agree that this is where my beliefs are rooted, Judy. I hold beliefs in common with the Patristics which are rooted in Scripture. ... have you at least been open with him about that? I am sure there is much I do not know about Street Preaching: do what want Dean to come clean on that before we head down there? Mind your own business, heretic. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
You can call me whatever you like so long as it's OK with the moderators, it's your conscience that should be being defiled by such bitterness. I don't understand why when you agree that this is where your beliefs are rooted and are busy trying to get Dean to sit under Baxter Kruger and hear all about the "dancing trinity" This should be enlightening for him. Why don't you admit to him that it is a group who teach this "perichoresis"? have you at least been open with him about that? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:03:22 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill From: Judy Taylor You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Because I'm trying to understand what you believe concerning our Savior. To this point you seem to be building your house on shifting sand. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about him often enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
How does one point a finger lyrically, Judy? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry How does one point a finger over the internet? You'd need a pretty long finger wouldn't you? It's a different playing field and Blaine gives as good as he gets. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:40:27 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous? From: Judy Taylor "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:25:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the word down there."Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day.Bob Dylan :: Copyright © 1964 On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two & cult-apostles like DavidM) would have to say about it is that he (too) rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, || -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Why would you ask such a question? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:39:06 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time? From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about him often enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about preaching and teaching. The Words he spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were the Fathers. All of them were anointed by the Spirit of God and these are what drew the people. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juic
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
How does one point a finger over the internet? You'd need a pretty long finger wouldn't you? It's a different playing field and Blaine gives as good as he gets. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:40:27 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous? From: Judy Taylor "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:25:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the word down there."Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day.Bob Dylan :: Copyright © 1964 On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two & cult-apostles like DavidM) would have to say about it is that he (too) rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, || -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: January 08, 2006 08:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) You see? She sometimes does believe in the deity of Christ. She goes down a trail of disagreeing with somebody because of who it is or some shibboleth they have used, instead of thinking properly about what they are saying, and then finds, surprise surprise, she is contradicting her own belief. That is what makes it so maddening to try to "dialogue" (misnomer if ever there was one) with her: not so much her insultingness, but her constant sabotage of communication. It is a complete waste of time--and the thing is, it's not just one's own time, but hers also that is wasted, since I'm sure (as you've often said too) that when she's not writing on TT she's doing many truly worthwhile and admirable things. She should not be participating in such a forum at all. I think it would be more charitable just to leave her unanswered till she gets bored and signs off and goes about her proper God-ordained business. She is neither learning nor teaching here but is doubtless fruitful elsewhere. D I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD
Re: [TruthTalk] FW: January 6 - The Delusions of 2005 ("deny the power thereof")
EVERY REFORM MOVEMENT utilizes less than lauditory speech concerning those
not themselves part of the 'reform'.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 07, 2006 18:47
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] FW: January 6 -
The Delusions of 2005 ("deny the power thereof")
Blainerb: Rev Jan Markell has it
right (see below)--more evidence of truth of the warning from God to Joseph
Smith: "They teach for doctrine the commandments of men, having a form
of Godliness, but denying the power thereof."
In a message dated 1/7/2006 2:18:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
January
6 - The Delusions of 2005
·
The church will save the world and make it perfect for Christ's
return (Dominion/Kingdom Now Theology). Reality check: Many
churches are not even preaching a sound gospel. They are preaching a bloodless gospel to fill up the pews
and false doctrine is exploding as
predicted.
·
We're in the "last days" and churches are encouraging their
flock to get right with God while there is still time. Reality
check: Visit most any church in
America and you will
not hear the wonderful news that Jesus is coming
soon.
·.
·
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)
Blaine: I have an audio tape, surreptitiously obtained, of the then prophet (1978) describing the 'revelation' (political decision) to permit non-whites into the priesthood. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 07, 2006 18:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob) Blainerb: What John and brother Moore have written below is the crux of what God meant when he told Joseph Smith that the Protestant ministers of the day taught doctrines of men, which had a form of Godliness, but denied the Power thereof. In other words, they denied the "greater revelation," or the possibility of "greater revelation" than that contained in the Bible. This will turn to their ultimate condemnation, in the great hereafter, because God has all power--and is the same today, yesterday, and forever--including having the right and ability to give forth "greater revelation." If the ministers of Protestant religion do not repent of this prideful stubbornness, then I am thinking one of the most immediate consequences will be for God to empower the Remnant of Jacob to go through, and destroy the wonderful civilization that has been built up over the past two hundred years called the US of A. Those Mexicans, most of whom are descendants of the Aztecs, who by the way worshipped Quetzalquatl, who was described as being a White God who wore a white robe and a beard, just keep coming over the border, don't they? Despite efforts to stay them, and the prophecy contained in 3 Nephi of the BoM creeps closer and closer to being fulfilled every day. I hope when it happens, the "Remnant" will by then have recognized the LDS Church as something other than a "White Guy's" church. There is already evidence this is true. The Navajo language has two words for White men: Biligana, which is a derisive term, meaning something like, "White Enemy," and another term which simply means "White brother." The latter is usually applied to members of the LDS Church. I spent three years teaching Dine' (Navajos) in Southern Utah, and I know that among them are many who have adopted the Black man's symbol for Black Power--a raised, gloved hand--except the fingers of the glove have been cut off, allowing the red man's fingers to show through at the end of the glove, apparently symbolizing the Red Power Movement that has grown from the Black Power Movement. You Protestant cowboys might do well to strap on your six-shooters, 'cause I believe the day will soon come when the game we played as little kids--Cowboys and Indians--may become a nightmarish reality . . . In a message dated 1/7/2006 12:55:32 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 9:56:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry kidding, of course. Actually, I am going to use the bat at the local batting cages. The closest thing to physical excercise that I really want to get, in my old age. jd cd: How old are you John? I am 44 now and kinda like this age. Splitting firewood is enough exercise for me. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:44:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry G, let me know when you get my check for the bat. That's right, Dean !! I'm buying a bat !! jd cd: What type of bat and what do you plan to do with this bat-should I be concerned of answering my door? I Should have kept the wolf/ dog. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..what if, perhaps. elemental to BTs commentary, there genuinely appears to be a qualitatively greater revelation than your 'greater revelation'? On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two
Re: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S
street preachers are gettin' into greater revelation, too--eh? this should encourage BB, et. al.:) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 13:11:21 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || ..look past the pointing finger in order to see the glory of the stars..-Bruce Lee. ||
Fw: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
My apologies to the Street Preachers everywhere for having drug them into this. I'll make my point another way: Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? . . . Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. . . . "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:25:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the word down there."Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day.Bob Dylan :: Copyright © 1964 On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two & cult-apostles like DavidM) would have to say about it is that he (too) rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, || -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Some analogies are better than others. None are fully adequate. It is probably best to stay away from ones which tend toward modalism. Just my opinion, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this explanation. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God..." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 12:36:50 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S myth (as in. e.g., Jn 8, humankind trap & get trapped in a more sophisticated manner than raccons, Bro) cd: No myth- one needs to looks past the pointing finger in order to see the glory of the stars beyond the finger-Bruce Lee. The point is not getting trapped in such a manner as the raccoon which I pointed out in the message. The point is one cannot do the same action over and over again and expect different results. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:39:35 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In the Mountains of Western North Carolina, .. old timers used to hunt Raccoons in a most peculiar way. ..the raccoon wouldn't release the object he would become trapped .. But man on the other hand was created in the image of Almighty God, who is very creative, would not be trapped in such a manner.. ||
Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
By the way, I don't want to leave yous thinking that hupostasis meant the same to the patristics that "understanding" means to us. To them, this word came closer to meaning "standing-under." The humanity of Christ stood under his divinity by way of union. Were it not for that standing-under union, his humanity, along with all humanity, would have fallen. Bill - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God An interesting aside, perhaps, on the terminology of "hypostatic union": The Greek word hupostasis is a compound of hupos which means "under" and stasis which means "to stand"; hence in this phrase we have the "understanding" union. That understanding may not be exhaustive, but it is real and true nonetheless. This is the case with all our understanding of God: because we are finite and he infinite, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend him, but that is not to say that we can know him to our fullest potential; that is, to really know him. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God The followig from the internet explains that this is a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding - that being the case IMO it is just mouthing someone elses words. God gives understandig The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable to fully understanding. In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: NOTHING! However, I'm prepared to say that Judy, past, present and, future, cannot 'reconcile' herself to this understanding. Thus my point concerning 'why'. From: Taylor 2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union: God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill From: Judy Taylor You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling and it does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
'amen' that, & that greater revelation provides a slooo of innocuous commentary On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:08:09 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AMEN to Dylan's insightful song--liked especially the part about sweatin' . . . maybe like in the Garden of G? :>) Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 6:29:13 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, the G man has given us one of Dylan's better quotes. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:25:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the word down there."Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day.Bob Dylan :: Copyright © 1964
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Hi Dean. My question was to Judy. If when she answers it, you still want to have a discussion, just say so and I'll come back to your points. Bill (By the way, that may be your practice, but it does not seem to be typical of Street Preachers. I have been to the 16th Street Mall in Denver on more than one occasion, minding my own business, only to have an SP hollar at me to repent or I'm going to hell. Well, how the hell would he know? He doesn't know me at all. He just figures, given the odds, that I am reprobate. That, in my opinion, is lazy evangelism; moreover, it's symptomatic of Wife-Beater Syndrome -- poor gal hangs out at the bar and just can't seem to find a man who won't beat her: Go to the mall and insult people, 'til one of them beats the snout out of you, so you can praise God for having been pursecuted. It doesn't make much sense to me.) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 10:30:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous? cd: Bill-Speaking as a Street Preacher-We do more then just the calling of repentance and warn of the dangers of hell. We Teach, We preach righteousness can be obtained-We discuss the trinity with others- At Mardi Gras we answer thousand of questions a day till our brain shuts down from exhaustion-many of them the same as we answer here.Some of these question are of a wanting to learn nature some are combative. To call for someone to repent or you are going to hell only usually happens after all other avenues have been closed or that person does something really nasty in out presence. I also feel that the Holy Spirit has lead us to make those type of proclamations. We are told to do so in the Bible Bill. Tell me haven't I done more with DaveH and Blain on this site then rebuke-I will admit of having less patience with false prophets but that is biblical also.? It is the same there- We come here so that Iron can sharpen iron. I have decided a long time ago that due to the fact there aren't many willing t o go to the highway and byways and do the Lords work-as they don't want to see the fields are ready for harvest- that I was not going to stop/hinder anyone ( male ,female,black red, or yellow) from going to those fields (unless sin is present). Lest I find myself warring against God. Please consider my words. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:25:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the
Re: [TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S
myth (as in. e.g., Jn 8, humankind trap & get trapped in a more sophisticated manner than raccons, Bro) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 11:39:35 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In the Mountains of Western North Carolina, .. old timers used to hunt Raccoons in a most peculiar way. ..the raccoon wouldn't release the object he would become trapped .. But man on the other hand was created in the image of Almighty God, who is very creative, would not be trapped in such a manner.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 10:30:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous? cd: Bill-Speaking as a Street Preacher-We do more then just the calling of repentance and warn of the dangers of hell. We Teach, We preach righteousness can be obtained-We discuss the trinity with others- At Mardi Gras we answer thousand of questions a day till our brain shuts down from exhaustion-many of them the same as we answer here.Some of these question are of a wanting to learn nature some are combative. To call for someone to repent or you are going to hell only usually happens after all other avenues have been closed or that person does something really nasty in out presence. I also feel that the Holy Spirit has lead us to make those type of proclamations. We are told to do so in the Bible Bill. Tell me haven't I done more with DaveH and Blain on this site then rebuke-I will admit of having less patience with false prophets but that is biblical also.? It is the same there- We come here so that Iron can sharpen iron. I have decided a long time ago that due to the fact there aren't many willing t o go to the highway and byways and do the Lords work-as they don't want to see the fields are ready for harvest- that I was not going to stop/hinder anyone ( male ,female,black red, or yellow) from going to those fields (unless sin is present). Lest I find myself warring against God. Please consider my words. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:25:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the word down there."Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day.Bob Dylan :: Copyright © 1964 On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two & cult-apostles like DavidM) would have to say about it is that he (too) rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, || -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
[TruthTalk] TO ALL TT"S
In the Mountains of Western North Carolina, where I live, the old timers used to hunt Raccoons in a most peculiar way. They would cut a hole in a box or a section of a log and put an object (usually something shiny such as rock or ball) into the hole, that was larger than the hole, and the raccoon would reach into the hole ,grasp the object and attempt to withdraw it from the hole, but due to the objects size would be unable to do so and because the raccoon wouldn't release the object he would become trapped and lose his fur and his life. But man on the other hand was created in the image of Almighty God, who is very creative, would not be trapped in such a manner-we would simply release the object and try some other method of getting this prize. Here on TT I see many "raccoons" becoming trapped for lack of creativity as they expect different results from the same approach-which is error. I highly recommend trying a different approach so as to use the nature God gave us.I am not suggesting compromise by any mean s- but to have fun using creativity as the catalyst for that fun. He that has an ear let him hear. Yours in Christ, Carroll D Moore.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this explanation. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God..." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/8/2006 10:12:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) I believe in the same thing Dean only I call it the Godhead rather than "trinity" because Godhead is what it is named in scripture. I don't deny there is a Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit. judyt cd: Good-I understood you to believe this sister Judy-But what I am having trouble distinguishing is what is the difference between what you and John are debating? The passage in question clearly shows the Character of the father so someone (not sure who) simple put father in the place of those characteristics-to wit both of you have stated this fact .I am not saying anyone should be so bold as to do such-and in time I may see deeper into why they should not have done so-but at the present have no problem as I do not see any real change from the words the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. I find it interesting that your use of the NASV would put you at odd with John who is actually spending energy to show that the KJ has some changes in it to encourage the use of the NASV. Tell me what are the main points of difference between you and John on this subject? I must be missing something. Thanks sis. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:59:26 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know about boundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23 , written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changed the specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "It may not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, w
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
myth [examing existential evidence,e.g.,] On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 04:54:05 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God.. || for ref: 1. James 1:21 (King James Version) ..receive with meekness the engrafted word.. || On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:28:48 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || only come to Christ one way..by being drawn by the Father through the Spirit by the Word and it is the "engrafted Word" which is able to save the soul as we choose to walk in it. - 2. On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 04:57:56 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Saul..after being knocked from his donkey ..
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
myth (doctrinal donkey drivel) On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 04:57:56 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Saul..after being knocked from his donkey ..
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] More drivel from the heretic
"because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers ..." If the Church fathers make the difference, then you are correct, Judy: when speaking of God, I am orthodox -- and that makes you the heretic. Got any problems with that, then whine to the moderators. I'm sure they'll be glad to share the bottle with you. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:57 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God You may need to take another trip Bill because the understanding you have come back with is that of the Church Fathers who by their words and actions (fruit) negated their profession.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Hey Judy, I've got a question for you: When Street Preachers point their fingers at Blaine and say 'Repent or you're going to hell!" is that righteous? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" Jesus the Christ (John 7:24) Blaine are you saying that Dylan's pointing the finger at others is righteous? On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:32:37 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judge not that ye be not judged-- Blainerb In a message dated 1/7/2006 3:23:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm! Dylan ought to be much more concerned about being him on that day. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:25:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, your clock is gonna stopAt Saint Peter's gate.Ya gonna ask him what time it is,He's gonna say, "It's too late."Hey, hey!_I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day._ You're gonna start to sweatAnd you ain't gonna stop.You're gonna have a nightmareAnd never wake up.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna cry for pillsAnd your head's gonna be in a knot,But the pills are gonna cost moreThan what you've got.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna have to walk naked,Can't ride in no car.You're gonna let ev'rybody seeJust what you are.Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. Well, the good wine's a-flowin'For five cents a quart.You're gonna look in your moneybagsAnd find you're one cent short.Hey, hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day. You're gonna yell and scream,"Don't anybody care?"You're gonna hear out a voice say,"Shoulda listened when you heard the word down there."Hey, hey!I'd sure hate to be youOn that dreadful day.Bob Dylan :: Copyright © 1964 On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two & cult-apostles like DavidM) would have to say about it is that he (too) rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, || -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. When did Jesus receive the Holy Spirit, Judy, and was he the divine Christ before that time? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:22:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion. Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on marriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in there because it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules . Another accusation JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the clear meaning of the text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see this? He said it and it is written about him often enough. You are a good example of how doctrine can blind ppl. Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission. Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcile ppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. Where did this object lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I don't think so. The word Christ itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about preaching and teaching. The Words he spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were the Fathers. All of them were anointed by the Spirit of God and these are what drew the people. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
Amen Dean, Amen! On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:02:44 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 60 years old. I think I am five or six years younger than Judy -- that would make her the matriarch of the forum. jd cd: Age and wisdom goes together-if God enlightens. Word while it is still day for the night comes. From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] kidding, of course. Actually, I am going to use the bat at the local batting cages. The closest thing to physical excercise that I really want to get, in my old age. jd cd: How old are you John? I am 44 now and kinda like this age. Splitting firewood is enough exercise for me. --From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] G, let me know when you get my check for the bat. That's right, Dean !! I'm buying a bat !! jd cd: What type of bat and what do you plan to do with this bat-should I be concerned of answering my door? I Should have kept the wolf/ dog. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..what if, perhaps. elemental to BTs commentary, there genuinely appears to be a qualitatively greater revelation than your 'greater revelation'? On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two & cult-apostles like DavidM) would have to say about it is that he (too) rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
I believe in the same thing Dean only I call it the Godhead rather than "trinity" because Godhead is what it is named in scripture. I don't deny there is a Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit. judyt On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:59:26 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know about boundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23 , written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changed the specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "It may not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than strivi
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 6:10:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry(update on remnant of Jacob) Blainerb: What John and brother Moore have written below is the crux of what God meant when he told Joseph Smith that the Protestant ministers of the day taught doctrines of men, which had a form of Godliness, but denied the Power thereof. In other words, they denied the "greater revelation," or the possibility of "greater revelation" than that contained in the Bible. This will turn to their ultimate condemnation, in the great hereafter, because God has all power--and is the same today, yesterday, and forever--including having the right and ability to give forth "greater revelation." cd: Certainly not greater than what Christ has given- from the mouth of another?
Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 8:17:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry 60 years old. I think I am five or six years younger than Judy -- that would make her the matriarch of the forum. jd cd: Age and wisdom goes together-if God enlightens. Word while it is still day for the night comes. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 9:56:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry kidding, of course. Actually, I am going to use the bat at the local batting cages. The closest thing to physical excercise that I really want to get, in my old age. jd cd: How old are you John? I am 44 now and kinda like this age. Splitting firewood is enough exercise for me. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:44:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry G, let me know when you get my check for the bat. That's right, Dean !! I'm buying a bat !! jd cd: What type of bat and what do you plan to do with this bat-should I be concerned of answering my door? I Should have kept the wolf/ dog. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..what if, perhaps. elemental to BTs commentary, there genuinely appears to be a qualitatively greater revelation than your 'greater revelation'? On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:18:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., let's say BT (of TT) confidently comments creatively on necessities (also, germane to Protestant thought, i suspect) disclosed discreetly from certain revelation per se and all that you (two & cult-apostles like DavidM) would have to say about it is that he (too) rejects 'greater revelation'? On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:02:45 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAVEH: Certainly, none on TT.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what Protestants would say they need it? On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:07:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..Protestants ..have rejected the greater revelation, ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 7:22:23 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy) Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jd cd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JD However, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know about boundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23 , written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changed the specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "It may not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus. Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us"
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
cd: Well Said Judy.
- Original Message -
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/7/2006 6:58:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:02:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- Original Message -
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: Lance Muir
Sent: January 07, 2006 15:55
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
[I'm quite excited because in the course of writing the second paragraph below, I became aware of knowing something important.]
From what I've read of the exchange, it's hard to tell what Judy really believes about Jesus. To me it seems that she does not respond to what is being said so much as to who is saying it: all she knows is that she must disagree with JD and Bill. This is what I mean when I characterize her as disingenuous.
Believe me Debbie Sawczak this is not "all she knows" - This is just what you think is all she knows because you have no frame of reference for what she writes.
How indefensible her statement to the effect that if something is beyond our human comprehension--in terms of logical deconstruction--it can't be true, that this is what is meant by "God gives understanding". It is in fact just the opposite. Through logic, ideas are entailed by, ultimately contained in, other ideas already in our heads. There would never be any need for revelation, nor any knight's moves, and ideas would have priority over persons.
I did not make any such statement so what is indefensible is a figment of your own imagination Debbie. I was referring to the habit
of the Church Fathers - who always called what they could not explain a "mystery" - this is a tradition that has carried through
and appears in the rcc as well as some other denominations today as opposed to the Promise of the Father which is the Spirit who
will lead us into ALL Truth.
The tone of the whole Bible is otherwise. This is the Tree, you see, and the whole Bible is about knowing God versus eating from the Tree.
Not so Debbie; the whole Bible is about which tree one chooses to eat from; also there is no way for us to KNOW GOD aside from abiding in Him and His Words (from the tree of life) abiding in us. So you are hooked to one tree or the other whether or not you are
presently aware.
We come back to the book I just bought ("Relational logic"--as opposed to Greek logic!) and to McGrath's intellectual shift having so much to do with "getting to know" Torrance. It has come up before in conversations you and I have had about changing one's mind: it always has to do with relationship. You know things by opening yourself to a person. Persons have priority over ideas. Hey, that is Polanyi, too!! Wow, this all meshes!! Just composing this paragraph made some connections obvious to me. D
So you are all into Torrance and Polyani and human relations/relationships. Oh well!! I guess you will become like your teachers ... "For what person perceives (knows and understands) what passes through a man's thoughts except the man's own spirit within him?" 1 Cor 2:11(Amp). But you don't get to learn God's thoughts which are higher than mans, or His ways which are so much wiser. He never trained Moses relationally, he had to spend 40yrs on the far side of the desert before he was fit for ministry. Same with the educated Pharisee of the Pharisees Saul. It took up to 14yrs out in the desert alone after being knocked from his donkey before he was fit to go out and he clearly says that he did not confer with flesh
