date:20060111




Judy and David, I will let you work this out. I will be 
posting on Phi. 2 ASAP but do not see it as necessarily pertinent to my answer 
here. It was not the Holy Spirit "in" Jesus that made him divine, if it 
were then all believers would be equally divine. AS the Word of God Jesus was 
always the Second Person of the Trinity, and as such was always fully God. 

 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:21 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
   
   
  On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:55:02 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
From: Judy Taylor 
I don't ask either of these questions Bill 
but this is beside the point 
 
I'm thinking you do not realize how you "sound" to others, 
Judy.
 
No Bill I don't think it possible to 
know how every person I speak to thinks.  All I can 
possibly be is "me in the Lord" and ppl will 
either accept or reject me as is; I have
no control over that.  I know Paul 
tried to speak as a Jew to the Jews etc. but we are
all in the same culture here on TT so far as 
I know  Your question to me was 

"When did Jesus receive the Holy 
Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe 

the Word of God was/is full of the 
Holy Spirit?" 
 
Was?   Yes, from his baptism. 

 
Had to have been before his baptism; his 
birth was precipitated by the Holy Spirit
and there was spiritual recognition between 
he and John while both were in utero
when Mary visited her cousin 
Elizabeth.  The Spirit descending at his baptism was
to anoint him for ministry.  Jewish men 
were baptised and anointed for ministry as
priests at age 33.  He fulfilled all righteousness.  
 
Is?   Yes.

   
  On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  

 
 
I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
yet failed to 
acknowledge.  
 
Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" 
you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go 
unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot 
answer without affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your 
question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll 
consider answering it then. 
 
Thanks, 
Bill
 -- 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)

No.

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:37 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)

  Are you saying that God decreed the fall of 
  man Bill?

  On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:27:19 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

From: Judy Taylor 

  Oophs!  
  Possibly I should have said "God the Word" - When IYO did He actually 
  become Jesus?

  And you are saying that you asked me this question 
  earlier -- hm.    Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." If 
  your theology is such that the fall was either predetermined or 
  inevitable from eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, 
  his identification as such coming by revelation to Joseph. IF 
  the fall was not one of those, then "God" the Word took on the "Savior" 
  aspect when humanity fell. 

  At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an 
  inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and 
  Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us 
  in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to 
  say that humans were chosen in "Yah saves" before any were 
  even created; i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, 
  yet the name implies the eventual necessity. Bill

  On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:

I don't ask either of these questions Bill but 
this is beside the point
Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive 
the Holy Spirit?"
My question to you is "Do you believe the Word 
of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?"

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
  yet failed to 
  acknowledge.  

  Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" 
  you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go 
  unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot 
  answer without affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your 
  question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll 
  consider answering it then. 

  Thanks, 
  Bill

 -- 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] Mormon doctrine

2006-01-11 Thread Blainerb473





In a message dated 1/11/2006 6:49:14 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The majority of your questions reflect a great deal of 
  'absence of forethought', Judy.

LOL  This is good!!  TT is the 
greatest!!
Blainerb

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine (of atonement)


Thank you , Blaine.
 
Much difference between the Chritian amd Mormon concepts !!  
Thanks, again.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Blainerb:  Below are all more or less Mormon doctrines relating to the Atonement--but you will have to think/contemplate on these things to understand them: 
 
Here's the deal as I understand it:  Although Adam and Eve were real people, Adam was a type or similitude of Christ--the Bridegroom, and  Eve was a type or similitude of the Church--the Bride.  Adam and Eve had together entered into a covenant relationship of marriage, and just as Adam took upon himself sin in order that he might not be separated from Eve, so Christ took upon himself the sins of the Church, in order that the Church (the Bride) might not become separated from Him.
This symbolism/reasoning tells us that the atonement was primarily to bring about a reconciliation between Christ, the Bridegroom,  and the Bride, or members of the Church, who are in a covenant relationship with Christ, similar to marriage.   (See the parable of the ten virgins also.)  
Others outside the covenant relationship will benefit  from the grace or, in other words, good will of Christ, but may not reap full benefits from the atonement, simply because they are not in a covenant relationship with him.  Christ may well give them side-benefits, one of which is immortality, but since they have no promise, only his good will operates in their behalf.  There is no, "If you will keep my commandments, then I will give you glory, immortality, and eternal lives."  There is only his good will, and his love, and his desire to see all justly and mercifully dealt with.
Simply put, in the very words of Christ, "Greater love hath no man than this--that he give his life for his friends.  Ye are my friends, if you keep my commandments."   
Only those who have kept his commandments, and fulfilled the terms of the covenant/contract (have kept their lamps trimmed and filled with the oil of obedience),  will reap full benefits.  Baptism by one having authority, by the way,  is believed by Mormons to be one of these terms.  :>)
 
 
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 10, 2006 08:04
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Yes I have.  And, over the years, your contribution has not help .  For example --  what is the official Mormon teaching on the atonement of Christ?  I have asked that question before, here on TT.  The answer?   Must be under the pickle!! 
 
I am beginning to believe that there is no Mormon teaching on the atonement of Christ save for the claim that the price was paid in the Garden !!  
 
Help.
 
jd


 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 8:30:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

If the 'Mormon Jesus' is comparable to Rudolph the red nosed reindeer who 'saved' the day for Santa one dark night then belief in such an one is pointless. DM appears to perceive little difference between his Jesus and DH's Jesus? 
CD: They are as both are Idols.

- Original Message -

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

2006-01-11 Thread Blainerb473

In a message dated 1/11/2006 6:48:15 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  OK Go to the corner for some down 
  time, David. 

  Ha Ha!  I love 
  it!!  Blainerb

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

Sent: January 11, 2006 08:40
Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
doctrine

Why not give David a rest Lance; you know as well 
as me that we have
been over and over Greek verbs and present/passive 
tense ad nauseam
and a lot of what I have written has been either 
rejected or made suspect
by someone's perception of Greek.

David's _expression_ 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he 
employs often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my 
position'. I'm not so sure that this is not the case

.From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Judy wrote:>>> ... they can not know God or His Word 
unless they are>>> Greek scholars and know every little 
translational nuance.>> John wrote:>> More ad hom 
and in this case a flasehood>> Please try to leave some of the 
moderation to the moderator.  This is not > an> ad 
hominem argument.  Discuss it in private if you disagree.  Judy is 
> simply> communicating what she perceives how some of the 
intellectuals on this > forum> come across to her.  If 
her perception is faulty, please try to correct it> without attacking 
her.  Teach her in meekness and humility.  Personally, > 
I'm> not so sure she is too far off base with this 
characterization.  We will> know the truth of it by how the 
intellectuals respond.>> David 
Miller.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine (of atonement)

2006-01-11 Thread Blainerb473






Blainerb:  Below 
are all more or less Mormon doctrines relating to the Atonement--but you will 
have to think/contemplate on these things to understand them: 
 
Here's 
the deal as I understand it:  Although Adam and Eve were real 
people, Adam was a type or similitude of Christ--the Bridegroom, and 
 Eve was a type or similitude of the Church--the 
Bride.  Adam and Eve had together entered into a covenant 
relationship of marriage, and just as Adam took upon himself sin in order 
that he might not be separated from Eve, so Christ took upon himself the 
sins of the Church, in order that the Church (the Bride) might not become 
separated from Him.
This symbolism/reasoning tells us that the atonement was 
primarily to bring about a reconciliation between Christ, the 
Bridegroom,  and the Bride, or members of the Church, who 
are in a covenant relationship with Christ, similar to 
marriage.   (See the parable of the ten virgins 
also.)  
Others 
outside the covenant relationship will benefit  from the grace or, in other words, good 
will of Christ, but may not reap full benefits from the atonement, simply 
because they are not in a covenant relationship with him.  
Christ may well give them side-benefits, one of which is immortality, 
but since they have no promise, only his good will operates in their 
behalf.  There is no, "If you will keep my commandments, then I will give 
you glory, immortality, and eternal lives."  There is only his good will, 
and his love, and his desire to see all justly and mercifully dealt 
with.
Simply 
put, in the very words of Christ, "Greater love hath no man 
than this--that he give his life for his friends.  Ye 
are my friends, if you keep my 
commandments."   
Only those who have kept his commandments, and fulfilled 
the terms of the covenant/contract (have kept their lamps trimmed and filled 
with the oil of obedience),  will reap full benefits.  Baptism 
by one having authority, by the way,  is believed by Mormons to be one of 
these terms.  :>)
 
 
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 10, 2006 08:04
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
doctrine

Yes I have.  And, over the years, your contribution has not help 
.  For example --  what is the official Mormon teaching on the 
atonement of Christ?  I have asked that question before, here on TT.  
The answer?   Must be under the pickle!! 
 
I am beginning to believe that there is no Mormon teaching on the atonement 
of Christ save for the claim that the price was paid in the Garden !!  

 
Help.
 
jd

  
   
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 8:30:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] 
Mormon doctrine

If the 'Mormon Jesus' is comparable to Rudolph 
the red nosed reindeer who 'saved' the day for Santa one dark night then 
belief in such an one is pointless. DM appears to perceive little difference 
between his Jesus and DH's Jesus? 
CD: They are as both are Idols.

  - Original Message -

Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?


The context of the public ministry   -- an excellent point.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Hi David, 
 
I want to begin by apologizing to you, but I am not going to be able to give your questions the attention they deserve. I wrote most of last night (in between short posts to others), thinking I was approximating what I needed to say in order present a satisfactory response; however, upon reading my reply, I realized that I was still leaving much unsaid. Nevertheless the problem boils down to this: either an appropriate answer is going to take more time than I have to offer, or I am going to have to condense my thoughts, knowing that they will not fully -- or perhaps even adequately -- address your inquiry. I'll attempt to do the best I can with the latter.
 
I think Dean said quite well one of the points I would like to make: If one is going to preach the condemnation of the law of sin, then he or she must give the sinner a way out, which is Christ; for to fail to do so is to leave a soul in torment, and not in a state of grace (thanks Dean). This it seems to me is the locus of failure in most of the preaching on repentance which I have encountered. It is certainly at the center of my concerns against "street preaching."
 

When repentance is preached as the introduction to the good news of Jesus Christ to people whose background is not rooted and grounded in the grammar of God's correspondence with humanity, which is inclusive of most people in the western world today, the bottom line is this: it is being preached out of context. There is no repentance apart from Jesus Christ and to expect people to repent who do not know him is to demand of them the impossible. "Repent? What the hell for? and What does that even mean?"
 
The confusion I see over the topic of preaching repentance, is based in a failure on the part of most Christians to realize that repentance, when it was preached in the New Testament, was directed almost exclusively (I am inclined to leave off the "almost" but have not fully research it) to people who were already people of God: it was preached to God's people, the Jews; or to people who knew Christ -- relationally, if not also via personal encounter -- and had put their faith in him. These were people to whom the utterance had meaning. It was meaningful because it was already contextualized in the language of God. To them, repentance meant not only a turning away from something -- as Dean puts it, "the law of sin" -- but a turning to the one whom they already knew as God. The great difficulty they had was in turning to Jesus Christ as the One who was that God. And as you know, many of them refused to do so.
 
And so, to those people, "repentance" was firstly a change of mind, a turning away from old beliefs and a turning to a new way of thinking about God. The task of repentance for them entailed a restructuring of their thinking about who this God was in whom they had believed. Theirs was to begin to think of God in a way which placed Jesus at the heart of God's identity. It was thus a first order paradigm shift. Repent for what? Repent about this man you know as Jesus of Nazareth. Change your mind about him. He is your Messiah. 
 
To preach repentance to people who do not have this contextual background is to place upon them a death sentence. It is to throw the whole weight of salvation upon their shoulders and to expect of them what no one apart from Christ has ever accomplished: "I have to do something in order to be saved, but I have not the will to pull it off." Hence, if it is taken seriously at all, the weight of that decision will crush them -- if not today, then someday soon.
 
Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen.
 
I think I'll cut is off with that, David. To go further would be to get into things we have discussed many times in the past. I hope this begins to address your questions and to give you some indication as to my thoughts in relation to this subject. I am sorry that I do not have more time to spend on this, but I have dozens of papers to grade, on top of wanting to spend some time with Tanya and Andy, not to mention I'm over sixty posts behind in my ready :>) Thanks DavidM. I hope you are not displeased with me.
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:38 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
> Bill wrote:> > no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really> > got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was> > but a segue to the soul of t

Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?




Hi David, 
 
I want to begin by apologizing to you, but I am not going to 
be able to give your questions the attention they deserve. I wrote most of last 
night (in between short posts to others), thinking I was approximating what I 
needed to say in order present a satisfactory response; however, upon reading my 
reply, I realized that I was still leaving much unsaid. Nevertheless the problem 
boils down to this: either an appropriate answer is going to take more 
time than I have to offer, or I am going to have to condense my thoughts, 
knowing that they will not fully -- or perhaps even adequately -- address your 
inquiry. I'll attempt to do the best I can with the latter.
 
I think Dean said quite well one of the points I would like to 
make: If one is going to preach the condemnation of the law 
of sin, then he or she must give the sinner a way out, which is Christ; for to 
fail to do so is to leave a soul in torment, and not in a state of grace 
(thanks Dean). This it seems to me is the locus of failure in most of the 
preaching on repentance which I have encountered. It is certainly at the 
center of my concerns against "street preaching."
 

When repentance is preached as the introduction to 
the good news of Jesus Christ to people whose background is not rooted and 
grounded in the grammar of God's correspondence with humanity, which is 
inclusive of most people in the western world today, the bottom line is 
this: it is being preached out of context. There is no repentance apart 
from Jesus Christ and to expect people to repent who do not know him is to 
demand of them the impossible. "Repent? What the hell for? and What does 
that even mean?"
 
The confusion I see over the topic of preaching repentance, is 
based in a failure on the part of most Christians to realize that repentance, 
when it was preached in the New Testament, was directed almost 
exclusively (I am inclined to leave off the 
"almost" but have not fully research it) to people who were 
already people of God: it was preached to God's people, the Jews; or 
to people who knew Christ -- relationally, if not also via personal 
encounter -- and had put their faith in him. These were people to whom 
the utterance had meaning. It was meaningful because it was already 
contextualized in the language of God. To them, repentance meant not only a 
turning away from something -- as Dean puts it, "the law of sin" -- but a 
turning to the one whom they already knew as God. The great 
difficulty they had was in turning to Jesus Christ as the One who was that God. 
And as you know, many of them refused to do so.
 
And so, to those people, "repentance" was firstly 
a change of mind, a turning away from old beliefs and a turning to a new 
way of thinking about God. The task of repentance for them entailed a 
restructuring of their thinking about who this God was in whom they had 
believed. Theirs was to begin to think of God in a way which placed Jesus at the 
heart of God's identity. It was thus a first order paradigm shift. Repent 
for what? Repent about this man you know as Jesus of Nazareth. Change your mind 
about him. He is your Messiah. 
 
To preach repentance to people who do not have this contextual 
background is to place upon them a death sentence. It is to throw the 
whole weight of salvation upon their shoulders and to expect of them what no one 
apart from Christ has ever accomplished: "I have to do something in order 
to be saved, but I have not the will to pull it off." Hence, if it is 
taken seriously at all, the weight of that decision will crush them -- if not 
today, then someday soon.
 
Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with 
directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which 
people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, 
complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to 
the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news 
of Jesus Christ. Amen.
 
I think I'll cut is off with that, David. To go further would 
be to get into things we have discussed many times in the past. I hope this 
begins to address your questions and to give you some indication as to my 
thoughts in relation to this subject. I am sorry that I do not have more time to 
spend on this, but I have dozens of papers to grade, on top of wanting to spend 
some time with Tanya and Andy, not to mention I'm over sixty posts behind in my 
ready :>) Thanks DavidM. I hope you are not displeased with me.
 
Bill
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:38 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
> Bill wrote:> > 
no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really> > got to the Gospel. 
"Christ," it seemed, was> > but a segue to the soul of their 
message:> > "Repent, or be damn!"> > I have seen a few 
street preachers that focus on

Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus the Man as God


 
Two considerations:  
 
 
The Gospel of John is one of the clearest statements in all of the bibilical message for the deity of the Son of Man.  There is no clearer statement to that effect than chapter 1:1-14 and beyond.   By the time we get to chapter 6,  the reader has the understanding that the Jews who opposed Him believed that He was declaring His equality with God with the words of "Son of God"  (compare 5:18.)  Significantly,  Jesus chooses not to confound this opinion.   
 
In chapter 10,  the conflict continues to the point of intended death by stoning for Jesus, at the hands of the Jews.   The charge?    "..  because you make yourself to be God"  (v 33.)  Christ a two pronged response.  He questions their ankst by quoting their own Law, saying "Has it not been written in your Law, 'you are gods'?"   I believe that Jesus  confronts a people who have lost their vision of God.   It is all about rules and power.   Jesus must die because He has assumed great authority and such conflicts with thier position in the community.    Their faith declares them to be gods within a given context of thought.   And yet, they plan to kill the Christ    --   knowing that His sonship does not make Him a member of their club  !!    And then, He offeres a more seriously response:  " My Father is in me and I am in my Father  !!!    A declar
ation of shared deity.   And they sought to seize Him, but he slipped away.  
 
 

 
Secondly  --  Back in Heb 1:6 , the passage that speaks of worship due Christ as a man (from the angels)  --  it should be noted that the Jewish community had believed for centuries that the Angel of the Lord and the Lord were one and the same in terms of Divine Visitation.   Angels were considered  to be the highest of God's  creature creations  and were given much prominence in the Older scriptures. 
Yet, Jesus THE MAN is worshipped by these individuals (the angels.)   Most interesting.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry


Your opinion is duly noted. 
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Kevin spent a lot of time researching and posting to this list and it was always informative
I have to admire his persistence as well as his zeal and I miss his presence here every day.
 
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:59:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

How Kevin treats someone who is willing to listen to him for an extended period of time 
has little to do with the way he treats those on this forum with whom he disagrees.   jd
 
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




From: Taylor 

I have had several encounters with SPs over the years, Dean. And I have observed Kevin's approach to ministry here on TT, not to mention others who have drifted in and out over the last couple of years. And so, I will be the first to admit to a limited experience. Yes, I hung around and listened on more than one occasion, as I was curious to see the kinds of reactions their preaching provoked. And no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was but a segue to the soul of their message: "Repent, or be damn!" 
 
Having said that, I am opened to having misjudged Street Preachers as a whole, by the few I have encountered. That is why I am open to meeting you in N.O.
 
Bill
cd: I would like to add in Kevin"s defense-that this forum is limited in it's expressive forms-One cannot truly learn another on this site- Kevin has a big heart for the lost and I have seen him stand and discuss truth for hours with one individual-Great patience and love shown by Kevin but not seen on this site.

Re: [TruthTalk] More ad hom drivel


In your quote, you speak for all "incarnational folk" and , also, for me.  Your comment is extremely poortly informed on both counts.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Not your reality - Your truth either for that matter but this doesn't validate you - So??
 
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:56:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

You will need to quote this passage.   Maybe I will understand what that wouold be of interest  when you do.  :-)
 
Judy's comment has nothing to do with reality so --  I will look forward to your comments with some interest.  
 
jd
 
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd: Jd please quote the remaining couple of verses after 
Nephi 13:28 or I can do so if you wish?
 
 
 

From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



How ironic;
You "incarnational" folk can never point the finger at the Mormons because you are doing the exact same
thing when you tell others they can not know God or His Word unless they are Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance.
 
Bible 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:32:40 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This came from an article written by someone else.  I had downloaded it on to a floppy.  It does seem to be an honest attempt at presenting Mormon doctrine.  Such is a difficult assignment..since the Mormon church is obviously reluctant to present its doctrine in a public forum.   The summation included in this post comes from a non-Mormon.   I cannot find this type of presentation from the Mormon Church.  But, maybe I am looking in the wrong places.   Time will tell.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd: Beautiful John and true -I have had each and every one of these articles presented to me in front of the temple in SLC by Mormons (notice the big letters Blaine- You have been giving the respect you wanted)-you may want to join us there and answer these articles for yourself ( in your own way)-Just walk down the street and hold a banner that says ' Jesus Saves" and they will come to you ( we will supply the banner of your choice)-there is room at the inn for you in SLC-if interested I will give you the dates.
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/9/2006 11:04:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

The following is a summation of Mormon teaching.  The problem I have encountered is common to this article, as well.  And that is the difficulty in finding Mormon sites that speak officially for the  Mormon Church doctrine.   jd  (still looking )
 
  

Atonement 

"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, Sharing Time: The Atonement, Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.) 
"We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.) 
Baptism 

Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. 
Bible 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
Book of Mormon 

The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.) 
Devil, the 

The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.) 
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.) 
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.) 
God 

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321.  Joseph Smith,  Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry




Kevin spent a lot of time researching and posting to 
this list and it was always informative
I have to admire his persistence as well as his zeal 
and I miss his presence here every day.
 
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:59:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  How Kevin treats someone who is willing to listen to him for an extended 
  period of time 
  has little to do with the way he treats those on this forum with whom he 
  disagrees.   jd
   
  From: 
"Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




From: Taylor 

  I have had several encounters 
  with SPs over the years, Dean. And I have observed Kevin's approach to 
  ministry here on TT, not to mention others who have drifted in and out 
  over the last couple of years. And so, I will be the first to 
  admit to a limited experience. Yes, I hung around and listened on more 
  than one occasion, as I was curious to see the kinds of reactions their 
  preaching provoked. And no, it didn't seem to me that they 
  ever really got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was but a 
  segue to the soul of their message: "Repent, or be damn!" 
   
  Having said that, I am opened to having misjudged Street Preachers as 
  a whole, by the few I have encountered. That is why I am open to meeting 
  you in N.O.
   
  Bill
  cd: I would like to add in Kevin"s defense-that this forum is 
  limited in it's expressive forms-One cannot truly learn another on this 
  site- Kevin has a big heart for the lost and I have seen him stand and 
  discuss truth for hours with one individual-Great patience and 
  love shown by Kevin but not seen on this 
  site.

Re: [TruthTalk] More ad hom drivel




Not your reality - Your truth either for that matter 
but this doesn't validate you - So??
 
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:56:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  You will need to quote this passage.   Maybe Iwill understand 
  what that wouold be of interest  when you do.  :-)
   
  Judy's comment has nothing to do with reality so --  I will look 
  forward to your comments with soem interest.  
   
  jd
   
  From: 
"Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd: Jd please quote the remaining couple of verses after 

Nephi 13:28 or I can do so if you wish?
 
 
 

  From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  
  
  
How ironic;
You "incarnational" folk can never 
point the finger at the Mormons because you are doing the exact 
same
thing when you tell others they 
can not know God or His Word unless they are Greek scholars and 
know every little translational 
nuance.
 
Bible 

  "We believe the Bible to be 
  the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th 
  Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
  "Wherefore, 
  thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of 
  the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and 
  precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the 
  Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:32:40 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  This came from an article written by someone else.  I had 
  downloaded it on to a floppy.  It does seem to be an honest 
  attempt at presenting Mormon doctrine.  Such is a difficult 
  assignment..since the Mormon church is 
  obviously reluctant to present its doctrine in a public 
  forum.   The summation included in this post comes from a 
  non-Mormon.   I cannot find this type of presentation 
  from the Mormon Church.  But, maybe I am looking in the wrong 
  places.   Time will tell.
   
  jd
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd: Beautiful John and true -I have had each and every 
one of these articles presented to me in front of the temple in 
SLC by Mormons (notice the big letters Blaine- You have 
been giving the respect you wanted)-you may want to join us 
there and answer these articles for yourself ( in your own way)-Just 
walk down the street and hold a banner that says ' Jesus Saves" and 
they will come to you ( we will supply the banner of your 
choice)-there is room at the inn for you in SLC-if interested I 
will give you the dates.
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 1/9/2006 11:04:03 PM 
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Mormon doctrine
  
  The following is a summation of Mormon teaching.  The 
  problem I have encountered is common to this article, as 
  well.  And that is the difficulty in finding Mormon sites 
  that speak officially for the  Mormon Church 
  doctrine.   jd  (still looking )
   
    
  
Atonement 

  "Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in 
  the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, Sharing Time: 
  The Atonement, Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.) 
  "We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our 
  sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
  and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, 
  Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of 
  Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.) 
Baptism 

  Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of 
  Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing 
  each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their 
  belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person 
  will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon 
  heaven. 
Bible 

  "We believe the Bible to be the word of 
  God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article 
  of Faith of the Mormon Church.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry


How Kevin treats someone who is willing to listen to him for an extended period of time has little to do with the way he treats those on this forum with whom he disagrees.   
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 




 
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 1:02:01 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry

I have had several encounters with SPs over the years, Dean. And I have observed Kevin's approach to ministry here on TT, not to mention others who have drifted in and out over the last couple of years. And so, I will be the first to admit to a limited experience. Yes, I hung around and listened on more than one occasion, as I was curious to see the kinds of reactions their preaching provoked. And no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was but a segue to the soul of their message: "Repent, or be damn!" 
 
Having said that, I am opened to having misjudged Street Preachers as a whole, by the few I have encountered. That is why I am open to meeting you in N.O.
 
Bill
cd: I would like to add in Kevin"s defense-that this forum is limited in it's expressive forms-One cannot truly learn another on this site- Kevin has a big heart for the lost and I have seen him stand and discuss truth for hours with one individual-Great patience and love shown by Kevin but not seen on this site.

Re: [TruthTalk] More ad hom drivel


You will need to quote this passage.   Maybe Iwill understand what that wouold be of interest  when you do.  :-)
 
Judy's comment has nothing to do with reality so --  I will look forward to your comments with soem interest.  
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd: Jd please quote the remaining couple of verses after Nephi 13:28 or I can do so if you wish?
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: Judy Taylor
Sent: 1/10/2006 7:53:02 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] More ad hom drivel

 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

How ironic;
You "incarnational" folk can never point the finger at the Mormons because you are doing the exact same
thing when you tell others they can not know God or His Word unless they are Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance.
 
Bible 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:32:40 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This came from an article written by someone else.  I had downloaded it on to a floppy.  It does seem to be an honest attempt at presenting Mormon doctrine.  Such is a difficult assignment..since the Mormon church is obviously reluctant to present its doctrine in a public forum.   The summation included in this post comes from a non-Mormon.   I cannot find this type of presentation from the Mormon Church.  But, maybe I am looking in the wrong places.   Time will tell.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd: Beautiful John and true -I have had each and every one of these articles presented to me in front of the temple in SLC by Mormons (notice the big letters Blaine- You have been giving the respect you wanted)-you may want to join us there and answer these articles for yourself ( in your own way)-Just walk down the street and hold a banner that says ' Jesus Saves" and they will come to you ( we will supply the banner of your choice)-there is room at the inn for you in SLC-if interested I will give you the dates.
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/9/2006 11:04:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

The following is a summation of Mormon teaching.  The problem I have encountered is common to this article, as well.  And that is the difficulty in finding Mormon sites that speak officially for the  Mormon Church doctrine.   jd  (still looking )
 
  

Atonement 

"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, Sharing Time: The Atonement, Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.) 
"We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.) 
Baptism 

Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. 
Bible 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
Book of Mormon 

The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.) 
Devil, the 

The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.) 
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.) 
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.) 
God 

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321.  Joseph Smith,  Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.) 
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones

RE: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




 cd; Good point Judy.
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/11/2006 2:14:01 PM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy wrote:> We know that He was full of the Holy Spirit because> it is written that "God giveth not the Spirit by measure> unto him" (John 3:34)
 
This passage says that God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure, indicating that it was a present thing, something that was happening at the time it was being spoken.  John 3:34 was speaking about a time AFTER John saw the Spirit descending upon him, after his baptism.  Therefore, this passage does not settle the question concerning when Jesus was FULL of the Spirit... without measure.  Note also, that this perhaps should be looked at as a continual thing, a process, rather than an event in history.  The Spirit was constantly flowing through him without measure.
 
Judy wrote:> ... so my belief is that he was full of the Holy Spirit and> pure/holy from birth which is how he could sit in the midst> of the doctors at age 12, hear them, and ask such> questions that all who heard him were astonished at his> understanding and answers. (Luke 2:46,47).
 
Sitting with the doctors at age 12 and being found to be full of wisdom does not settle the question of whether he was FULL of the Spirit either.  I have had this experience myself, with my pastors asking me, "how much do you read the Bible... you must spend hours every day reading the Bible to know it by heart so well."  We need to be careful not to read more into what Luke is saying than is warranted.
 
Well we see in Luke 1:15 that the angel told Zacharias that John the Baptist
would be full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb and John himself says
he is not fit to remove Jesus' sandals (John 3:11) so wouldn't it be safe to
assume that Jesus was also full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb,
especially since she concieved him by the ministry of the Holy Spirit - how
could he be anything else?.
 
Jesus certainly had the Spirit working in his life, but if part of what Jesus came to do was to experience what we experience, then I think he also experienced a time when he was not FULL.  
 
My understanding is that in his humanity he was hungry and tired as we 
are - well we know he was in the wilderness of temptation; but he was also
the recipient of every sin along with the curse it carries with it during those
three hours on the cross when everything was dark.  Wouldn't this be enough?
 
From my consideration of Scripture, I think I am inclined to agree with Bill that 
this happened at the time of his baptism.  I tend to differ from him about whether or 
not it would be proper to call him Jesus prior to his birth as a man, but I will leave that discussion for another time.
 
Hmmm!  Then why would God the Father fill John in his mother's womb and
make Jesus wait for 30yrs?  Makes no sense to me David.

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




cd: Bro I just don't know what I maybe should know that you know-if indeed you truly know it.
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/11/2006 10:30:05 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

words are in context, Bro--many times the context is incomplete
 
humor=joke/s? 
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:31:41 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


cd: You lost me again bro? Are you saying that you were joking about taking the words out of context or do you view my comment  on God giving you light in a higher way as a joke?
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 11:00:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

..or is it, Bro?
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..interestingly, humor doesn't appear to be confined to the KJV
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:01:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

you can define humor, Bro--what is it?
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

JD wrote:
> I sourced all three comments  !!!   Are you accusing
> me of making up definitions and then stating them as
> factual, David?  Is that what you are doing?

No, John.  My post was written and sent before I received the post you had 
written with the definitions.  I'm sorry if this confused you.

David Miller.

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

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

[TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Judy wrote:> We know that He was full of the Holy Spirit 
because> it is written that "God giveth not the Spirit by measure> 
unto him" (John 3:34)
 
This passage says that God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure, indicating 
that it was a present thing, something that was happening at the time it was 
being spoken.  John 3:34 was speaking about a time AFTER John saw the 
Spirit descending upon him, after his baptism.  Therefore, this passage 
does not settle the question concerning when Jesus was FULL of the Spirit... 
without measure.  Note also, that this perhaps should be looked at as a 
continual thing, a process, rather than an event in history.  The 
Spirit was constantly flowing through him without measure.
 
Judy wrote:> ... so my belief is that he was 
full of the Holy Spirit and> pure/holy from birth which is how he could 
sit in the midst> of the doctors at age 12, hear them, and ask 
such> questions that all who heard him were astonished at his> 
understanding and answers. (Luke 2:46,47).
 
Sitting with the doctors at age 12 and being found to be full of wisdom 
does not settle the question of whether he was FULL of the Spirit 
either.  I have had this experience myself, with my pastors asking me, 
"how much do you read the Bible... you must spend hours every day reading 
the Bible to know it by heart so well."  We need to be careful not to 
read more into what Luke is saying than is warranted.
 
Well we see in Luke 1:15 that the angel told Zacharias 
that John the Baptist
would be full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb 
and John himself says
he is not fit to remove Jesus' sandals (John 3:11) so 
wouldn't it be safe to
assume that Jesus was also full of the Holy Spirit from 
his mother's womb,
especially since she concieved him by the ministry of 
the Holy Spirit - how
could he be anything else?.
 
Jesus certainly had the Spirit working in his life, but if part of what 
Jesus came to do was to experience what we experience, then I think he also 
experienced a time when he was not FULL.  
 
My understanding is that in his humanity he was hungry 
and tired as we 
are - well we know he was in the wilderness of 
temptation; but he was also
the recipient of every sin along with the 
curse it carries with it during those
three hours on the cross when everything was 
dark.  Wouldn't this be enough?
 
From my consideration of Scripture, I think I am inclined to agree with 
Bill that 
this happened at the time of his baptism.  I tend to differ from him 
about whether or 
not it would be proper to call him Jesus prior to his birth as a man, but I 
will leave that discussion for another time.
 
Hmmm!  Then why would God the Father fill John in 
his mother's womb and
make Jesus wait for 30yrs?  Makes no sense to me 
David.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




JD, we have been around and around about this in other 
threads but here is a recent one on Col 1:19,20 from 1-7-06
You wrote:

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.  
 
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.  jd
 
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:56:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  She has been corrected on this any number of times, but refuses to accept 
  my comments ABOUT MY OWN INTENTIONS.    She has decided 
  that I am lying about my own intentions and, as such,  her comments are 
  ad hom whether you agree or not.  jd 
   
  From: 
"David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Judy wrote: > 
>> ... they can not know God or His Word unless they are > 
>> Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance. > 
> John wrote: > > More ad hom and in this case a flasehood 
> > Please try to leave some of the moderation to the 
moderator. This is not an > ad hominem argument. Discuss it in 
private if you disagree. Judy is simply > communicating what she 
perceives how some of the intellectuals on this forum > come across 
to her. If her perception is faulty, please try to correct it > 
without attacking her. Teach her in meekness and humility. Personally, I'm 
> not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization. We 
will > know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond. 
> > David M iller. > > -- > "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] ad hominem defined




John, none of these references say that "begging the question" is the 
same as an ad hominem argument.  The definitions you present all deal with 
directing attacks at the messenger.
 
Here is a definition for "begging the question."
--
From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
"In logic, 
begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive 
reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or 
explicitly in one of the premises. "
--
 
Here is a definition for "ad hominem"
--  
From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad 
hominem (Latin, 
literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that 
involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting 
the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
--
 
Do you see the difference?
 
David.
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:39 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem 
  defined
  
  From the American Heritage dictionary: 
   
   
   
   As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the 
  homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument 
  was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to 
  appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence 
  The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to 
  maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance 
  taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel 
  finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument 
  based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: 
  Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for 
  people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds 
  this sentence acceptable. The _expression_ now also has a looser use in 
  referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as 
  in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him 
  in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of 
  the Panel. Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun 
  denoting personal attacks, as in Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, 
  Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together (Washington Post). 
  This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in 
  journalistic style. A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad 
  feminam, as in Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on 
  his wife Vera often border on character assassination (Simon Karlinsky). 
  Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin 
  word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in 
  some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad 
  hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they 
  are women, as in Their recourse  to ad feminam attacks evidences the 
  chilly climate for women's lea dership on campus (Donna M. Riley). 
   
   
   
  And a most enlightening comment is this one:   
  
   
  
  A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant 
  personal premisses 
  about his opponent. Such red herrings 
  may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the 
  debate. 
  
   (  S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to 
  Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 
  198-206.) 
  And finally, this addition:  
   
  A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to 
  attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it 
  simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting 
  an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, 
  political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).
    (words from the Nizkor Project).  
   
  So, David, please stop telling me that I do not know what I am talking 
  about.  
   
  jd
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > Have I gone 
over your head with the use > > of this phrase? Look up ad hom and 
you > > will find "begging the question" in there > > 
somewhere. You have no idea just how > > ridiculous this makes you 
sound. > > Please stop attacking Judy! PLEASE! > 
> You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad hom" and 
"begging the > question" are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. I don't 
have the time right > now to educate you on the differences. Maybe 
the moderator can help, or > maybe you can look i

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine


You have not given any references for your definition of ad hominem arguments, so I don't know if you are reading a poor source or if you are just making up the definition based upon your feelings about it.  I think the following definition is workable:
I sourced all three comments  !!!   Are you accusing me of making up definitions and then stating them as factual, David?  Is that what you are doing?  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The job of the moderator is to rebuke those on the list who have crossed the > line on the ad hominem arguments. He doesn't have to do that in very case, > but when we fail to realize that we are attacking other list members, it is > his job to point it out and stop the ad hominem flury. When we as list > members point it out, we must be careful, because pointing out ad hominem > arguments is an ad hominem rebuttal itself. We need to practice extra care > and patience, and add enough to what we are saying to get the conversation > back on track. We should not just say, "that was ad hom" as an attack and > leave it at that. > > Concerning the definition of ad hominem arguement, we are primarily > concerned with the form of discrediting what is said by attacking
 the > messenger rather than the messenger. The reason is because of what we have > observed on TruthTalk quite frequently in recent times. Members feel > insulted and react more out of emotion than from rational thought. The > dialogue disintigrates into a personal wrestling match which becomes very > boring to everyone except the wrestlers. > > You have not given any references for your definition of ad hominem > arguments, so I don't know if you are reading a poor source or if you are > just making up the definition based upon your feelings about it. I think > the following definition is workable: > > - > >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, > literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical > fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the > person p
resenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. > - > > You can read more about it at the link above. There are much better > discussions elsewhere, but I simply do not have the time to look up the > references for you right now. > > David Miller. > > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine > > > And I, by no means, am conducting the work of "moderator.' I am discussing > the defintion of ad hom . By definition, it is anything that takes us away > from the discussion at hand. It can be insulting or not. That is all I > am doing. Are we not allowed to discuss the definitions and applications? > Discipline is the work of a moderator. > > jd > > 
-- Original message -- > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > David's _expression_ 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he employs > > often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my position'. > > I'm not so sure that this is not the case > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Miller" > > To: > > Sent: January 11, 2006 08:07 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine > > > > > > > Judy wrote: > > >>> ... they can not know God or His Word unless they are > > >>> Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance. > > > > > > John wrote: > > >> More ad hom and in this case a flasehood > > > > > > Please try to leave some of the moderation to the moderator. This is n > > > ot > > > 
an > > > ad hominem argument. Discuss it in private if you disagree. Judy is > > > simply > > > communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on this > > > forum > > > come across to her. If her perception is faulty, please try to correct > > > it > > > without attacking her. Teach her in meekness and humility. Personally, > > > I'm > > > not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization. We will > > > know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond. > > > > > > David Miller. > > > > > > -- > > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > > > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > > > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >
; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > > > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > > > > > -- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > > know how > > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://w

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

The job of the moderator is to rebuke those on the list who have crossed the 
line on the ad hominem arguments.  He doesn't have to do that in very case, 
but when we fail to realize that we are attacking other list members, it is 
his job to point it out and stop the ad hominem flury.  When we as list 
members point it out, we must be careful, because pointing out ad hominem 
arguments is an ad hominem rebuttal itself.  We need to practice extra care 
and patience, and add enough to what we are saying to get the conversation 
back on track.  We should not just say, "that was ad hom" as an attack and 
leave it at that.

Concerning the definition of ad hominem arguement, we are primarily 
concerned with the form of discrediting what is said by attacking the 
messenger rather than the messenger.  The reason is because of what we have 
observed on TruthTalk quite frequently in recent times.  Members feel 
insulted and react more out of emotion than from rational thought.  The 
dialogue disintigrates into a personal wrestling match which becomes very 
boring to everyone except the wrestlers.

You have not given any references for your definition of ad hominem 
arguments, so I don't know if you are reading a poor source or if you are 
just making up the definition based upon your feelings about it.  I think 
the following definition is workable:

-
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, 
literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical 
fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the 
person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
-

You can read more about it at the link above.  There are much better 
discussions elsewhere, but I simply do not have the time to look up the 
references for you right now.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

And I, by no means, am conducting the work of "moderator.'  I am discussing 
the defintion of ad hom .  By definition, it is anything that takes us away 
from the discussion at hand.   It can be insulting or not. That is all I 
am doing.  Are we not allowed to discuss the definitions and applications? 
Discipline is the work of a moderator.

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> David's expression 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he employs
> often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my position'.
> I'm not so sure that this is not the case
>
> .
> - Original Message - 
> From: "David Miller"
> To:
> Sent: January 11, 2006 08:07
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine
>
>
> > Judy wrote:
> >>> ... they can not know God or His Word unless they are
> >>> Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance.
> >
> > John wrote:
> >> More ad hom and in this case a flasehood
> >
> > Please try to leave some of the moderation to the moderator. This is n 
> > ot
> > an
> > ad hominem argument. Discuss it in private if you disagree. Judy is
> > simply
> > communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on this
> > forum
> > come across to her. If her perception is faulty, please try to correct 
> > it
> > without attacking her. Teach her in meekness and humility. Personally,
> > I'm
> > not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization. We will
> > know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond.
> >
> > David Miller.
> >
> > -- 
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
>
>
> -- 
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
> know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a 
> friend
> who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be subscribed. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine


She has been corrected on this any number of times, but refuses to accept my comments ABOUT MY OWN INTENTIONS.    She has decided that I am lying about my own intentions and, as such,  her comments are ad hom whether you agree or not.  
 
jd 
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Judy wrote: > >> ... they can not know God or His Word unless they are > >> Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance. > > John wrote: > > More ad hom and in this case a flasehood > > Please try to leave some of the moderation to the moderator. This is not an > ad hominem argument. Discuss it in private if you disagree. Judy is simply > communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on this forum > come across to her. If her perception is faulty, please try to correct it > without attacking her. Teach her in meekness and humility. Personally, I'm > not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization. We will > know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond. > > David M
iller. > > -- > "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] ad hominem defined

From the American Heritage dictionary:
As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The _expression_ now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for
the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in Their recourse to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's lea
dership on campus (Donna M. Riley).
And a most enlightening comment is this one:

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

( S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 198-206.)
And finally, this addition:
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).
(words from the Nizkor Project).
So, David, please stop telling me that I do not know what I am talking about.
jd
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > Have I gone over your head with the use > > of this phrase? Look up ad hom and you > > will find "begging the question" in there > > somewhere. You have no idea just how > > ridiculous this makes you sound. > > Please stop attacking Judy! PLEASE! > > You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad hom" and "begging the > question" are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. I don't have the time right > now to educate you on the differences. Maybe the moderator can help, or > maybe you can look it up for yourself. Furthermore, "begging the question" > is allowed on TruthTalk. It is not a good form of argumentation, but you > will not find me or any other moderator reprimanding someone on the list for > beggi
ng the question. It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to > recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation. The ad > hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive to this > fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the emotions of others > and causes posts like this one that you just made. > > The reason you might have seen a list with "begging the question" and "ad > hom" together is because these are two different forms of fallacious > argumentation. You were probably reading a list of fallacious arguments. > THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Please correct your misunderstanding of these terms. > Even if your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do so > from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who looks > ridiculous. > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Judy wrote:
> We know that He was full of the Holy Spirit because
> it is written that "God giveth not the Spirit by measure
> unto him" (John 3:34)

This passage says that God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure, indicating that 
it was a present thing, something that was happening at the time it was 
being spoken.  John 3:34 was speaking about a time AFTER John saw the Spirit 
descending upon him, after his baptism.  Therefore, this passage does not 
settle the question concerning when Jesus was FULL of the Spirit... without 
measure.  Note also, that this perhaps should be looked at as a continual 
thing, a process, rather than an event in history.  The Spirit was 
constantly flowing through him without measure.

Judy wrote:
> ... so my belief is that he was full of the Holy Spirit and
> pure/holy from birth which is how he could sit in the midst
> of the doctors at age 12, hear them, and ask such
> questions that all who heard him were astonished at his
> understanding and answers. (Luke 2:46,47).

Sitting with the doctors at age 12 and being found to be full of wisdom does 
not settle the question of whether he was FULL of the Spirit either.  I have 
had this experience myself, with my pastors asking me, "how much do you read 
the Bible... you must spend hours every day reading the Bible to know it by 
heart so well."  We need to be careful not to read more into what Luke is 
saying than is warranted.

Jesus certainly had the Spirit working in his life, but if part of what 
Jesus came to do was to experience what we experience, then I think he also 
experienced a time when he was not FULL.  From my consideration of 
Scripture, I think I am inclined to agree with Bill that this happened at 
the time of his baptism.  I tend to differ from him about whether or not it 
would be proper to call him Jesus prior to his birth as a man, but I will 
leave that discussion for another time.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] David and the teaching of Christ


 but my philosophy and teaching is more like Jesus Christ than anyone else that was ever born.    DM
 
This seems to say that you are closer to the truth of Christ than anyone else.
Is that what you have said.  Please leave the attached post in your response, for context's sake.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lance wrote: > > There is but one on TT, Judy, whose wisdom is > > the wisdom of Aristotle. That one would be DM. > > Philsophy is to DM what the church fathers are > > to some others. > > Surely you know that I object to this characterization of me, Lance. My > philosophy is more like Plato than Aristotle, but my philosophy and teaching > is more like Jesus Christ than anyone else that was ever born. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nGlory.org 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)




 
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:27:19 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Oophs!  Possibly I should have said 
"God the Word" - When IYO did He actually become Jesus?
 
 
And you are saying that you asked me this question earlier 
-- hm.    Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." 
 
Joshua means the same - it is another way of 
saying Jesus.
 
If your theology is such that 
the fall was either predetermined or inevitable 
from eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, 
his identification as such coming by revelation to Joseph. 

 
The angel spoke to Mary before Joseph had 
any revelation and Mary was told "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, 
and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.  He shall be great, and shall be called the 
Son of the Highest and the Lord God shall give unto
him the throne of his father David" 
(Luke 1:31)
 
IF the fall was not one of those, then "God" the Word took 
on the "Savior" aspect when humanity fell. 
 
How about when he was begotten in the womb 
of Mary?  Shall call, shall be, shall be, and shall give all sound like 
future tense to me.
 
At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an 
inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us 
in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to say 
that humans were chosen in "Yah saves" before any were even 
created; i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, yet the 
name implies the eventual necessity. Bill
 
That's because God is transcendent, 
omnipresent, and omnicient so that He knows all things before they 
happen...  However, ATST
this does not mean that he ordains or 
decrees them, and especially not if they are evil, since he can not be 
tempted by/with evil.
 
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I don't ask either of these questions Bill but 
  this is beside the point
  Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive 
  the Holy Spirit?"
  My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of 
  God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?"
   
  On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  

 
 
I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
yet failed to 
acknowledge.  
 
Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" 
you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go 
unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot 
answer without affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your 
question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll 
consider answering it then. 
 
Thanks, 
Bill
 
   -- This message has been scanned for 
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to 
be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine


And I, by no means, am conducting the work of "moderator.'  I am discussing the defintion of ad hom .  By definition, it is anything that takes us away from the discussion at hand.   It can be insulting or not. That is all I am doing.  Are we not allowed to discuss the definitions and applications?   Discipline is the work of a moderator. 
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > David's _expression_ 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he employs > often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my position'. > I'm not so sure that this is not the case > > . > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: January 11, 2006 08:07 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine > > > > Judy wrote: > >>> ... they can not know God or His Word unless they are > >>> Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance. > > > > John wrote: > >> More ad hom and in this case a flasehood > > > > Please try to leave some of the moderation to the moderator. This is n
ot > > an > > ad hominem argument. Discuss it in private if you disagree. Judy is > > simply > > communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on this > > forum > > come across to her. If her perception is faulty, please try to correct it > > without attacking her. Teach her in meekness and humility. Personally, > > I'm > > not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization. We will > > know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond. > > > > David Miller. > > > > -- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > >
 friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
When you speak, David, you speak as David Miller and, NOT as the Spirit of 
God. You do know that don't you? Anyone with a modicum of discernment is 
able to tell who's voice they're listening to. 
 
 
When David says what God says he speaks as the oracles 
of God by the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit ... and yes anyone with 
spiritual discernment
should be able to hear the voice of the Lord through 
His servants.
 
You speak often as one trapped in a framework that is alien to the 'all 
truth' to 
which you so often allude.
 
Your opinion again Lance.  Just because you 
discern that he has a different
"framework" from you does not mean his is the 
"alien"  - Who are you following?
 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Lance wrote:>> ... my 'investment' is in Him, NOT in 
them.>> If your investment is in Him, NOT them, then think for 
yourself and speak> from the Spirit of God.  Don't leave the 
framework for your speech to > those> you consider able to do a 
better job.  Be who you are called to be in> Christ.  Don't be 
afraid of obtaining infallible truth from the Spirit of> God.  This 
is a promise given to you as well as to Judy.  Be not> unbelieving, 
but believing.>> In regards to your previous language, I'm certain 
that HE did not give you> that line about how I am a philosophical 
rationalist.  The term> "philosophical rationalist" was invented by 
men, not God.  It is a > divisive,> contradictory term that 
most of the time does not serve a useful, godly> purpose.>> 
David Miller.>> --> "Let your speech be always with 
grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer 
every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org>> If 
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a > friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> 
 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him 
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




 
 
Oophs!! I shouldn't have said "none" because there is 
the Isaiah passage
(Isaiah 7:14); but where are all the others you speak 
of.
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:02:00 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Lance writes: The INCARNATION is everywhere present throughout the entirety of Scripture, 
  Judy. 
  
 
Where?  Jesus told His disciples at the 
end that "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in
the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and 
in the psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44).  I know
some of those things and none of them 
concern the "incarnation"
 
IFF Israel is the preparatory womb for 
Immanuel, the Incarnate Isralelite, who then completes the
'double move of God in Himself, (God to man in 
Christ/Man to God in Christ) then your query is 
more than adequately addressed IN HIM...THE 
INCARNATE GOD.
 
Where does this "Israel as preparatory womb" 
idea come from - is it scriptural or doctrinal?
He was leading them through the wilderness 
as the rock and the fire; I'd say He was more a
womb for them than vise versa.

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  Well then Lance why don't you add what is missing 
  in my "forethought"
  Either that or answer my question.  Why 
  isn't the  "incarnation" and perichoresis
  a factor int he epistles and the book of 
  Acts?
   
  On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:48:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
The majority of your questions reflect a 
great deal of 'absence of forethought', Judy.

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  David,
  I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts 
  and in the Epistles we do not find 
  the
  great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we 
  are hearing in some circules today.
  The apostle Paul preached the cross 
  and spoke to Festus of righteousness, 
  
  temperance, and the judgment to come 
  (Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and 
  put off 
  dealing with it until later.  Why 
  didn't Paul speak to him of "incarnational 
  ontology" 
  so that he would feel better and not be so 
  upset?
  judyt
   
  Judy wrote:> In the meantime though I would like to ask 
  why> you and some of the others on TT put so much> 
  emphasis on the "incarnation" when Paul and the> apostles 
  preached the "cross"?  Does this disparity> not ever 
  bother you? Why didn't they go about everwhere> preaching the 
  "incarnaton?"
   
  Judy, the cross and the incarnation is related to each 
  other.  The reason they did not preach the incarnation per se 
  was because the incarnation of God was right there among 
  them.  Furthermore, even now, I do not PREACH the 
  incarnation.  I preach Christ.  However, I might TEACH 
  about the incarnation to help our understanding of what made Jesus 
  unique.
   
  The apostle John wrote:
   
  John 1:14(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among 
  us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of 
  the Father,) full of grace and truth.
   
  This is the incarnation, Judy.  The Word was made 
  flesh.
   
  John also wrote the following:
   
  1 John 4:2(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit 
  that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of 
  God:
   
  Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?  If 
  so, then you too believe in the Incarnation.
   
  David Miller. 
   
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned 
  with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  
  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
   
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email 
  to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

When you speak, David, you speak as David Miller and, NOT as the Spirit of 
God. You do know that don't you? Anyone with a modicum of discernment is 
able to tell who's voice they're listening to. You speak often as one 
trapped in a framework that is alien to the 'all truth' to which you so 
often allude.



- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 10:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)



Lance wrote:

... my 'investment' is in Him, NOT in them.


If your investment is in Him, NOT them, then think for yourself and speak
from the Spirit of God.  Don't leave the framework for your speech to 
those

you consider able to do a better job.  Be who you are called to be in
Christ.  Don't be afraid of obtaining infallible truth from the Spirit of
God.  This is a promise given to you as well as to Judy.  Be not
unbelieving, but believing.

In regards to your previous language, I'm certain that HE did not give you
that line about how I am a philosophical rationalist.  The term
"philosophical rationalist" was invented by men, not God.  It is a 
divisive,

contradictory term that most of the time does not serve a useful, godly
purpose.

David Miller.

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


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





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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




 
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:08:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  The INCARNATION is everywhere present throughout 
  the entirety of Scripture, Judy. 
   
  Where?  Jesus told His disciples at the 
  end that "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in
  the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in 
  the psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44).  I know
  some of those things and none of them concern 
  the "incarnation"
   
  IFF Israel is the preparatory womb for Immanuel, 
  the Incarnate Isralelite, who then completes the
  'double move of God in Himself, (God to man in 
  Christ/Man to God in Christ) then your query is 
  more than adequately addressed IN HIM...THE 
  INCARNATE GOD.
   
  Where does this "Israel as preparatory womb" 
  idea come from - is it scriptural or doctrinal?
  He was leading them through the wilderness as 
  the rock and the fire; I'd say He was more a
  womb for them than vise versa.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Well then Lance why don't you add what is missing 
in my "forethought"
Either that or answer my question.  Why isn't 
the  "incarnation" and perichoresis
a factor int he epistles and the book of 
Acts?
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:48:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  The majority of your questions reflect a 
  great deal of 'absence of forethought', Judy.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
David,
I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts and 
in the Epistles we do not find 
the
great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we are 
hearing in some circules today.
The apostle Paul preached the cross 
and spoke to Festus of righteousness, 

temperance, and the judgment to come 
(Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and 
put off 
dealing with it until later.  Why 
didn't Paul speak to him of "incarnational 
ontology" 
so that he would feel better and not be so 
upset?
judyt
 
Judy wrote:> In the meantime though I would like to ask 
why> you and some of the others on TT put so much> 
emphasis on the "incarnation" when Paul and the> apostles 
preached the "cross"?  Does this disparity> not ever bother 
you? Why didn't they go about everwhere> preaching the 
"incarnaton?"
 
Judy, the cross and the incarnation is related to each other.  
The reason they did not preach the incarnation per se was because 
the incarnation of God was right there among them.  
Furthermore, even now, I do not PREACH the incarnation.  I 
preach Christ.  However, I might TEACH about the incarnation to 
help our understanding of what made Jesus unique.
 
The apostle John wrote:
 
John 1:14(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, 
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
Father,) full of grace and truth.
 
This is the incarnation, Judy.  The Word was made flesh.
 
John also wrote the following:
 
1 John 4:2(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit 
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of 
God:
 
Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?  If so, 
then you too believe in the Incarnation.
 
David Miller. 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email 
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Original question by Judy:>>> Do you believe the Word 
of God>>> was/is full of the Holy Spirit?"
 
Judy wrote:>> Had to have been before his 
baptism; his birth>> was precipitated by the Holy Spirit and 
there>> was spiritual recognition between he and John>> 
while both were in utero when Mary visited her>> cousin 
Elizabeth.
 
These observations address that a work of the Holy Spirit was present, but 
it does not address his being FULL of the Holy Spirit.
 
We know that He was full of the Holy Spirit because it 
is written that 
"God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him" (John 
3:34) so my belief is
that he was full of the Holy 
Spirit and pure/holy from birth which is how he 
could sit in the midst of 
the doctors at age 12, hear them, and ask such 
questions that all who heard 
him were astonished at his understanding 
and answers. (Luke 
2:46,47).  ATST I believe he had to grow and mature
as a normal human being so the working of the Spirit in 
his life would be
age appropriate.
 
Judy wrote:> The Spirit descending at his baptism was to 
anoint> him for ministry.  Jewish men were baptised and> 
anointed for ministry as priests at age 33.> He fulfilled all 
righteousness.
 
I think you meant age 30.
 
Thank you David yes I did mean age 30.
 
If the Spirit anointed him at this point for ministry, then could one not 
say that he was not FULL of the Spirit prior to this point in time?  
Did not this anointing of the Spirit add something of the Spirit to 
him?  Please explain in more detail how you see this.
 
IMO this point is pivotal in why I get 
frustrated at times with those who make such 

a big thing out of Jesus' divinity and his being God.  I don't negate His place in the 
Godhead at all but when he became the son of man he layed that aside and limited
himself in that he walked as a man in union with 
God the Father by the 
Spirit so he
could leave us an example so that we could follow 
in his steps.  We are given a 
measure of the same faith/Spirit he walked in and we 
have the same heavenly 

Father and need to learn the same obedience in our own 
lives.  I don't see why
the Church as a whole is not doing the same works Jesus 
did.  I know some are.
 
 
Also, we must consider the following passage in this discussion.
 
Philippians 2:5-8(5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ 
Jesus:(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal 
with God:(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the 
form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:(8) And being 
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross.
 
Does not this passage teach that Jesus emptied himself of his Divinity in 
some way when he became man?
 
Exactly ... I believe this is what Phil 2:5-8 is 
saying. 
 
Consider this also in light of the following passage:
 
Hebrews 2:9(9) But we see Jesus, who was made a 
little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with 
glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every 
man.
 
Amazing, even though he created them by the Word of His 
Power 
 
Here he quotes Psalm 8:5, indicating that Jesus was made lower than the 
angels.  Don't you think this happened at his birth?  If so, 
taking these passages together indicate Jesus as being God prior to his 
birth, and therefore full of the Holy Spirit at that time in that being God, 
he was of the same substance with God.  Then upon birth, something 
happened.  He emptied himself and did not consider being equal with God 
something to be seized and held onto.  Rather, he 
emptied himself and became lower than the angels, born a man, but born 
unique, unlike other men, in that he was born by the power of the Holy 
Spirit.  Then Jesus grew in wisdom the Bible says. He was 
tempted as other men.  He learned obedience by his 
sufferings.  These are all characteristics of men, not of 
God.  The Bible instructs us that there was a point when he was 
baptized, and at that time, the Spirit descended upon him in the form of a 
dove.  Either that was just for show, or it was an anointing that added 
something more of the Spirit to him that he did not have before.  It 
appears that not too long after this time, he began public ministry which 
included miracles.  Do you see anything faulty with the way I am 
thinking on this subject Judy?
 
I sure couldn't have said it any better. I think you 
have explained it here 
extremely well
 
Peace be with you.David Miller. 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him 
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-11 Thread ttxpress




..'the fathers hold 
no authority whatsoever' is correct, Bro--e.g., the referenced fathers are the fathers 
bec they recognize to a man, uncontested, that 'Jesus Christ', partic in 
the writing of the Ap John is 'the  Father's son'--the one Father whose 
only son himself, in and through the flesh, is now in possession of 
all authority
 
you wanna contest 
it, that's you: your aimless philosophy which has nothin' to do with 
revelation in Church history
||

  
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:44:14 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:<>

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

2006-01-11 Thread ttxpress




words are in 
context, Bro--many times the context is incomplete
 
humor=joke/s? 
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:31:41 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  cd: You lost me again bro? Are you saying that you were joking 
  about taking the words out of context or do you view my comment  on 
  God giving you light in a higher way as a joke?
   
  
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 11:00:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
incarnate God (Judy)

..or is it, 
Bro?
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..interestingly, humor doesn't appear to be confined to the 
  KJV
   
  On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:01:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
you 
can define humor, Bro--what is it?
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

My Oh my but we do agree on this one, David!! In my 
usualy UNoriginal fashion, let me supply you with a quotation (from Stephen 
Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God):

"I think I understand why. Many of the significant 
theological works on the Trinity are simply too dense and abstract to be 
accessible to the average pastor or person in ministry. The writings of 
theologians are often so theoretical in nature they seem irrelevant to those 
engaged in the day-to-day practice of ministry, so practitioners shy away from 
them. As a result, when they reflect theologically on their ministerial 
practice, they do so with very little reference to the doctrine of the 
Trinity.

"My concern is to help them do that. Severalyears 
ago when Martin Marty, a prolific author and astute observer of the North 
American religious scene, was lecturing on our campus, I attended a luncheon 
with him. When a member of our faculty asked him about the kind of Christian 
books needed today, he responded, "So many Christian books written today are 
either 'theologically theological' or 'practically practical'. What we need most 
are books that are 'theologically practical'." That's my goal in writing this 
one. In considering the trinitarian shape of ministry, I want to be 
theologically practical."

 - Original Message - 

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 09:55
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
doctrine
> Lance wrote:>> What 'good point' does she make, 
David?> > She made a good point that some scholars and theologians 
are so removed from > doing the true work of the Lord that they invent a 
language that becomes > esoteric to themselves.  Only the educated 
and initiated understand what > they are talking about.  They will 
not condescend to men or women of low > estate and help them in the 
spirit of meekness and humility to understand > the same concepts in 
plain English.  We need a Debbie in this forum to help > explain 
this better than me.  Said another way, the theologians that you all 
> bash Judy over the head with need a translator.  The authors of 
Scripture > did not speak and teach like these theologians.> 
> Lance wrote:>> Might you be called upon to comment 
on>> my 'double move of God in Christ' post, David.> > 
Sorry to say it, but I did not read anything in that post that warranted any 
> comment from me.> > David Miller. > > 
--> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you 
will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and he will be subscribed.>

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Lance wrote:
> ... my 'investment' is in Him, NOT in them.

If your investment is in Him, NOT them, then think for yourself and speak 
from the Spirit of God.  Don't leave the framework for your speech to those 
you consider able to do a better job.  Be who you are called to be in 
Christ.  Don't be afraid of obtaining infallible truth from the Spirit of 
God.  This is a promise given to you as well as to Judy.  Be not 
unbelieving, but believing.

In regards to your previous language, I'm certain that HE did not give you 
that line about how I am a philosophical rationalist.  The term 
"philosophical rationalist" was invented by men, not God.  It is a divisive, 
contradictory term that most of the time does not serve a useful, godly 
purpose.

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Do women regularly tell you that you're a really funny guy? BTW, David, my 
'investment' is in Him, NOT in them.

--- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 09:49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Lance wrote:

I'm content to express myself within the framework
of those who do a better job than I, David.

Then you had better invest heavily in them, or you will be like the coward
who buried his talent in the ground and returned it to his master when he
returned.  If you are going to leave the job to others, be sure to have
collected some interest from them by the time your master returns.  Bear 
in

mind that if you invest in the wrong people, you will lose everything when
the time of reckoning comes upon you.

David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Lance wrote:
> What 'good point' does she make, David?

She made a good point that some scholars and theologians are so removed from 
doing the true work of the Lord that they invent a language that becomes 
esoteric to themselves.  Only the educated and initiated understand what 
they are talking about.  They will not condescend to men or women of low 
estate and help them in the spirit of meekness and humility to understand 
the same concepts in plain English.  We need a Debbie in this forum to help 
explain this better than me.  Said another way, the theologians that you all 
bash Judy over the head with need a translator.  The authors of Scripture 
did not speak and teach like these theologians.

Lance wrote:
> Might you be called upon to comment on
> my 'double move of God in Christ' post, David.

Sorry to say it, but I did not read anything in that post that warranted any 
comment from me.

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Lance wrote:
> I'm content to express myself within the framework
> of those who do a better job than I, David.

Then you had better invest heavily in them, or you will be like the coward 
who buried his talent in the ground and returned it to his master when he 
returned.  If you are going to leave the job to others, be sure to have 
collected some interest from them by the time your master returns.  Bear in 
mind that if you invest in the wrong people, you will lose everything when 
the time of reckoning comes upon you.

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine


Indeed  --  we all figure in the ministry of reconciliation.
 
jd
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

..interestingly, the thought of incarnation, effectively isolated below, is incarnate only in certain folk remote to the writer
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:09:07 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

the thought of incarnation is remote to the writer, below--why?
 
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:45:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

You "incarnational" folk ..

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

What 'good point' does she make, David? Might you be called upon to comment 
on my 'double move of God in Christ' post, David.

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 09:43
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Well, you do make a good point here, Judy.  Nevertheless, in your zeal to
make this point, make sure you do not deny the doctrine of the 
Incarnation.

It is a helpful teaching.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor

To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:31 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

David,
I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts and in the Epistles we do not
find the
great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we are hearing in some circules
today.
The apostle Paul preached the cross and spoke to Festus of righteousness,
temperance, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and
put off
dealing with it until later.  Why didn't Paul speak to him of 
"incarnational

ontology"
so that he would feel better and not be so upset?
judyt

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Well, you do make a good point here, Judy.  Nevertheless, in your zeal to 
make this point, make sure you do not deny the doctrine of the Incarnation. 
It is a helpful teaching.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:31 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

David,
I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts and in the Epistles we do not 
find the
great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we are hearing in some circules 
today.
The apostle Paul preached the cross and spoke to Festus of righteousness,
temperance, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and 
put off
dealing with it until later.  Why didn't Paul speak to him of "incarnational 
ontology"
so that he would feel better and not be so upset?
judyt

--
"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)

Original question by Judy:
>>> Do you believe the Word of God
>>> was/is full of the Holy Spirit?"

Judy wrote:
>> Had to have been before his baptism; his birth
>> was precipitated by the Holy Spirit and there
>> was spiritual recognition between he and John
>> while both were in utero when Mary visited her
>> cousin Elizabeth.

These observations address that a work of the Holy Spirit was present, but 
it does not address his being FULL of the Holy Spirit.

Judy wrote:
> The Spirit descending at his baptism was to anoint
> him for ministry.  Jewish men were baptised and
> anointed for ministry as priests at age 33.
> He fulfilled all righteousness.

I think you meant age 30.

If the Spirit anointed him at this point for ministry, then could one not 
say that he was not FULL of the Spirit prior to this point in time?  Did not 
this anointing of the Spirit add something of the Spirit to him?  Please 
explain in more detail how you see this.

Also, we must consider the following passage in this discussion.

Philippians 2:5-8
(5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God:
(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a 
servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
(8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Does not this passage teach that Jesus emptied himself of his Divinity in 
some way when he became man?

Consider this also in light of the following passage:

Hebrews 2:9
(9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the 
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of 
God should taste death for every man.

Here he quotes Psalm 8:5, indicating that Jesus was made lower than the 
angels.  Don't you think this happened at his birth?  If so, taking these 
passages together indicate Jesus as being God prior to his birth, and 
therefore full of the Holy Spirit at that time in that being God, he was of 
the same substance with God.  Then upon birth, something happened.  He 
emptied himself and did not consider being equal with God something to be 
seized and held onto.  Rather, he emptied himself and became lower than the 
angels, born a man, but born unique, unlike other men, in that he was born 
by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Then Jesus grew in wisdom the Bible says. 
He was tempted as other men.  He learned obedience by his sufferings.  These 
are all characteristics of men, not of God.  The Bible instructs us that 
there was a point when he was baptized, and at that time, the Spirit 
descended upon him in the form of a dove.  Either that was just for show, or 
it was an anointing that added something more of the Spirit to him that he 
did not have before.  It appears that not too long after this time, he began 
public ministry which included miracles.  Do you see anything faulty with 
the way I am thinking on this subject Judy?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

I'm content to express myself within the framework of those who do a better 
job than I, David.
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 09:21
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Lance wrote:

Having so identified yourself, David, (more like
Plato than Aristotle) you ought to object to  DM,
not to me. You are, IMO, a  philosophical rationalist.

Hi Lance.  You paint me with too broad of a brush.  I may be more 
agreeable
with Plato than Aristotle, but as I said in my previous post, I am more 
like

Jesus Christ than Plato.  I have no reason to object to myself.

You are well read, Lance, but you have not yet left your mother's milk and
learned to think for yourself.  What I mean is that you are constantly
trying to categorize people into categories that you have learned about 
from

others.  None of these categories actually exist in the real world.  They
are philosophical constructs.  You need to leave your more primitive level
of learning and starting applying your mind in a rational way to 
philosophy
and theology in such a way that you begin to formulate your own reasons 
for

believing what you believe.  You might think that you are not smart enough
to do it, but you are.  It is courage you need, boldness, to begin to 
think

for yourself.  It is there within you.  Make use of it.  Don't bury your
talent.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

'Read' you..better? Recognize the landscape, David? We've been on this road 
before. What, as you 'see' it, does 'lead her into ALL TRUTH actually mean?
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 09:27
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

David Miller wrote:

... I pointed out that your assertion that Judy should
not believe that the Holy Spirit would lead her into
all truth was blasphemous.  Please try to read me
a little better, please.

Lance wrote:

I read you correctly. Yours is a distinction
without a difference.

Please allow me the opportunity to explain to you the difference.

The difference is that while Judy might have a lack of full understanding 
on
a passage, she has the Holy Spirit and should trust that the Lord would 
lead
her to understand any perspective shared by you, me, or others whose 
source

is the Holy Spirit.  To deny that Jesus promised her this working of the
Holy Spirit is blasphemy (you said that she had no such guarantee).  On 
the

other hand, to deny that Judy understands everything in the universe fully
at this point in time is not blasphemy.  Such would simply be an
uninteresting statement of fact that only an idiot would repudiate.

David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

David Miller wrote:
>> ... I pointed out that your assertion that Judy should
>> not believe that the Holy Spirit would lead her into
>> all truth was blasphemous.  Please try to read me
>> a little better, please.

Lance wrote:
> I read you correctly. Yours is a distinction
> without a difference.

Please allow me the opportunity to explain to you the difference.

The difference is that while Judy might have a lack of full understanding on 
a passage, she has the Holy Spirit and should trust that the Lord would lead 
her to understand any perspective shared by you, me, or others whose source 
is the Holy Spirit.  To deny that Jesus promised her this working of the 
Holy Spirit is blasphemy (you said that she had no such guarantee).  On the 
other hand, to deny that Judy understands everything in the universe fully 
at this point in time is not blasphemy.  Such would simply be an 
uninteresting statement of fact that only an idiot would repudiate.

David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Lance wrote:
> Having so identified yourself, David, (more like
> Plato than Aristotle) you ought to object to  DM,
> not to me. You are, IMO, a  philosophical rationalist.

Hi Lance.  You paint me with too broad of a brush.  I may be more agreeable 
with Plato than Aristotle, but as I said in my previous post, I am more like 
Jesus Christ than Plato.  I have no reason to object to myself.

You are well read, Lance, but you have not yet left your mother's milk and 
learned to think for yourself.  What I mean is that you are constantly 
trying to categorize people into categories that you have learned about from 
others.  None of these categories actually exist in the real world.  They 
are philosophical constructs.  You need to leave your more primitive level 
of learning and starting applying your mind in a rational way to philosophy 
and theology in such a way that you begin to formulate your own reasons for 
believing what you believe.  You might think that you are not smart enough 
to do it, but you are.  It is courage you need, boldness, to begin to think 
for yourself.  It is there within you.  Make use of it.  Don't bury your 
talent.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




Yikes!! You're right, I just looked in the mirror. 
BTW & FWIW I always include myself in every criticism, Judy. No 
kiddin'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 11, 2006 08:54
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate 
  God (Judy)
  
   
  Lance writes:
  Judy, in a post moments ago, acknowledged that she cannot be but what she 
  is. This is how I read Judy. This is how I accept Judy. I do find her to 
  be REGULARLY but, UNINTENTIONALLY offensive to others. My concern would be 
  that such has been pointed out to her often. She adopts a 'I must be true 
  to the Scriptures' approach.
   
  There are others besides you with concerns 
  Lance.  My concern is that you and 
  others who see the need to ask these kinds of 
  questions  see themselves as so
  loving, doctrinally sound, and 
  unoffensive.  Kind of like the king with no clothes.
  judyt
   
   
  - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: 
  January 11, 2006 07:57Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God 
  (Judy)
   
   
  > JD wrote:>> Have I gone over your head with the 
  use>> of this phrase?  Look up ad hom and you>> will 
  find "begging the question" in there>> somewhere.   You 
  have no idea just how>> ridiculous this makes you 
  sound.>> Please stop attacking Judy!  
  PLEASE!>> You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad 
  hom" and "begging > the> question" are the same thing.  
  THEY ARE NOT.  I don't have the time right> now to educate you on 
  the differences.  Maybe the moderator can help, or> maybe you can 
  look it up for yourself.  Furthermore, "begging the > 
  question"> is allowed on TruthTalk.  It is not a good form of 
  argumentation, but you> will not find me or any other moderator 
  reprimanding someone on the list > for> begging the 
  question.  It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to> 
  recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation.  The 
  > ad> hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is 
  sensitive to this> fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames 
  the emotions of > others> and causes posts like this one that 
  you just made.>> The reason you might have seen a list with 
  "begging the question" and "ad> hom" together is because these are two 
  different forms of fallacious> argumentation.  You were probably 
  reading a list of fallacious arguments.> THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.  
  Please correct your misunderstanding of these > terms.> Even if 
  your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do > 
  so> from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who 
  looks> ridiculous.>> David Miller.>> 
  --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
  that you may > know how you ought to answer every man."  
  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org>> If 
  you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a > friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.> 
   
   
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
  that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
  http://www.InnGlory.org
   
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell 
  him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




The INCARNATION is everywhere present throughout 
the entirety of Scripture, Judy. IFF Israel is the preparatory womb for 
Immanuel, the Incarnate Isralelite, who then completes the 'double move of God 
in Himself, (God to man in Christ/Man to God in Christ) then your query is more 
than adequately addressed IN HIM...THE INCARNATE GOD.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 11, 2006 08:57
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
  doctrine
  
  Well then Lance why don't you add what is missing in 
  my "forethought"
  Either that or answer my question.  Why isn't 
  the  "incarnation" and perichoresis
  a factor int he epistles and the book of 
  Acts?
   
  On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:48:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
The majority of your questions reflect a great 
deal of 'absence of forethought', Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 11, 2006 08:31
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
  doctrine
  
  David,
  I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts and 
  in the Epistles we do not find the
  great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we are 
  hearing in some circules today.
  The apostle Paul preached the cross and spoke to Festus of righteousness, 
  temperance, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and put off 
  
  dealing with it until later.  Why 
  didn't Paul speak to him of "incarnational 
  ontology" 
  so that he would feel better and not be so 
  upset?
  judyt
   
  Judy wrote:> In the meantime though I would like to ask 
  why> you and some of the others on TT put so much> emphasis 
  on the "incarnation" when Paul and the> apostles preached the 
  "cross"?  Does this disparity> not ever bother you? Why didn't 
  they go about everwhere> preaching the "incarnaton?"
   
  Judy, the cross and the incarnation is related to each other.  
  The reason they did not preach the incarnation per se was because the 
  incarnation of God was right there among them.  Furthermore, even 
  now, I do not PREACH the incarnation.  I preach Christ.  
  However, I might TEACH about the incarnation to help our understanding 
  of what made Jesus unique.
   
  The apostle John wrote:
   
  John 1:14(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, 
  (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
  Father,) full of grace and truth.
   
  This is the incarnation, Judy.  The Word was made flesh.
   
  John also wrote the following:
   
  1 John 4:2(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that 
  confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
   
  Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?  If so, 
  then you too believe in the Incarnation.
   
  David Miller. 
   
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
  salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  
  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
   
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




Well then Lance why don't you add what is missing in my 
"forethought"
Either that or answer my question.  Why isn't 
the  "incarnation" and perichoresis
a factor int he epistles and the book of 
Acts?
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:48:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  The majority of your questions reflect a great 
  deal of 'absence of forethought', Judy.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 11, 2006 08:31
Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
doctrine

David,
I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts and in 
the Epistles we do not find the
great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we are 
hearing in some circules today.
The apostle Paul preached the cross and spoke to Festus of righteousness, 
temperance, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and put off 

dealing with it until later.  Why didn't Paul speak to him of "incarnational ontology" 

so that he would feel better and not be so 
upset?
judyt
 
Judy wrote:> In the meantime though I would like to ask 
why> you and some of the others on TT put so much> emphasis on 
the "incarnation" when Paul and the> apostles preached the 
"cross"?  Does this disparity> not ever bother you? Why didn't 
they go about everwhere> preaching the "incarnaton?"
 
Judy, the cross and the incarnation is related to each other.  The 
reason they did not preach the incarnation per se was because the 
incarnation of God was right there among them.  Furthermore, even 
now, I do not PREACH the incarnation.  I preach Christ.  
However, I might TEACH about the incarnation to help our understanding 
of what made Jesus unique.
 
The apostle John wrote:
 
John 1:14(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and 
we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) 
full of grace and truth.
 
This is the incarnation, Judy.  The Word was made flesh.
 
John also wrote the following:
 
1 John 4:2(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that 
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
 
Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?  If so, 
then you too believe in the Incarnation.
 
David Miller. 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




 
Lance writes:
Judy, in a post moments ago, acknowledged that she cannot be but what she 
is. This is how I read Judy. This is how I accept Judy. I do find her to be 
REGULARLY but, UNINTENTIONALLY offensive to others. My concern would be that 
such has been pointed out to her often. She adopts a 'I must be true to the 
Scriptures' approach.
 
There are others besides you with concerns Lance.  
My concern is that you and 
others who see the need to ask these kinds of 
questions  see themselves as so
loving, doctrinally sound, and unoffensive.  
Kind of like the king with no clothes.
judyt
 
 
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: 
January 11, 2006 07:57Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God 
(Judy)
 
 
> JD wrote:>> Have I gone over your head with the 
use>> of this phrase?  Look up ad hom and you>> will 
find "begging the question" in there>> somewhere.   You have 
no idea just how>> ridiculous this makes you sound.>> 
Please stop attacking Judy!  PLEASE!>> You are plain wrong 
about this idea you have that "ad hom" and "begging > the> 
question" are the same thing.  THEY ARE NOT.  I don't have the time 
right> now to educate you on the differences.  Maybe the moderator 
can help, or> maybe you can look it up for yourself.  Furthermore, 
"begging the > question"> is allowed on TruthTalk.  It is not 
a good form of argumentation, but you> will not find me or any other 
moderator reprimanding someone on the list > for> begging the 
question.  It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to> 
recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation.  The 
> ad> hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive 
to this> fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the 
emotions of > others> and causes posts like this one that you just 
made.>> The reason you might have seen a list with "begging the 
question" and "ad> hom" together is because these are two different forms 
of fallacious> argumentation.  You were probably reading a list of 
fallacious arguments.> THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.  Please correct your 
misunderstanding of these > terms.> Even if your attacks upon Judy 
were allowed in this forum, you should do > so> from an informed 
and educated position or you will be the one who looks> 
ridiculous.>> David Miller.>> --> 
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org>> If 
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a > friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> 
 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him 
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




Why not give David a rest Lance; you know as well as me 
that we have
been over and over Greek verbs and present/passive 
tense ad nauseam
and a lot of what I have written has been either 
rejected or made suspect
by someone's perception of Greek.
 
David's _expression_ 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he employs 
often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my position'. 
I'm not so sure that this is not the case
 
.From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Judy wrote:>>> ... they can not know God or His Word 
unless they are>>> Greek scholars and know every little 
translational nuance.>> John wrote:>> More ad hom and in 
this case a flasehood>> Please try to leave some of the moderation 
to the moderator.  This is not > an> ad hominem 
argument.  Discuss it in private if you disagree.  Judy is > 
simply> communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on 
this > forum> come across to her.  If her perception is 
faulty, please try to correct it> without attacking her.  Teach her 
in meekness and humility.  Personally, > I'm> not so sure she 
is too far off base with this characterization.  We will> know the 
truth of it by how the intellectuals respond.>> David 
Miller.>> --> "Let your speech be always with 
grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer 
every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org>> If 
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a > friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> 
 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him 
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




The majority of your questions reflect a great deal 
of 'absence of forethought', Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 11, 2006 08:31
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
doctrine
  
  David,
  I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts and in 
  the Epistles we do not find the
  great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we are 
  hearing in some circules today.
  The apostle Paul preached the cross and spoke to Festus of righteousness, 
  temperance, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and put off 
  dealing with it until later.  Why didn't Paul speak to him of "incarnational ontology" 
  
  so that he would feel better and not be so 
  upset?
  judyt
   
  Judy wrote:> In the meantime though I would like to ask 
  why> you and some of the others on TT put so much> emphasis on 
  the "incarnation" when Paul and the> apostles preached the 
  "cross"?  Does this disparity> not ever bother you? Why didn't 
  they go about everwhere> preaching the "incarnaton?"
   
  Judy, the cross and the incarnation is related to each other.  The 
  reason they did not preach the incarnation per se was because the 
  incarnation of God was right there among them.  Furthermore, even 
  now, I do not PREACH the incarnation.  I preach Christ.  
  However, I might TEACH about the incarnation to help our understanding of 
  what made Jesus unique.
   
  The apostle John wrote:
   
  John 1:14(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and 
  we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) 
  full of grace and truth.
   
  This is the incarnation, Judy.  The Word was made flesh.
   
  John also wrote the following:
   
  1 John 4:2(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that 
  confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
   
  Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?  If so, then 
  you too believe in the Incarnation.
   
  David Miller. 
   
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
  that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
  http://www.InnGlory.org
   
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell 
  him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




OK Go to the corner for some down time, 
David.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 11, 2006 08:40
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Mormon 
doctrine
  
  Why not give David a rest Lance; you know as well as 
  me that we have
  been over and over Greek verbs and present/passive 
  tense ad nauseam
  and a lot of what I have written has been either 
  rejected or made suspect
  by someone's perception of Greek.
   
  David's _expression_ 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he 
  employs often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my 
  position'. I'm not so sure that this is not the case
   
  .From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  > Judy wrote:>>> ... they can not know God or His Word 
  unless they are>>> Greek scholars and know every little 
  translational nuance.>> John wrote:>> More ad hom and 
  in this case a flasehood>> Please try to leave some of the 
  moderation to the moderator.  This is not > an> ad hominem 
  argument.  Discuss it in private if you disagree.  Judy is > 
  simply> communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals 
  on this > forum> come across to her.  If her perception is 
  faulty, please try to correct it> without attacking her.  Teach 
  her in meekness and humility.  Personally, > I'm> not so 
  sure she is too far off base with this characterization.  We will> 
  know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond.>> David 
  Miller.>> --> "Let your speech be always with 
  grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer 
  every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org>> If 
  you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a > friend who wants to 
  join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.> 
   
   
  --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
  that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
  http://www.InnGlory.org
   
  If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
  you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell 
  him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
  will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




 
Are you saying that God decreed the fall of man 
Bill?
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:27:19 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
Oophs!  
Possibly I should have said "God the Word" - When IYO did He actually become 
Jesus?
 
And you are saying that you asked me this question earlier 
-- hm.    Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." If your theology 
is such that the fall was either predetermined or inevitable from 
eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, his identification 
as such coming by revelation to Joseph. IF the fall was not one of 
those, then "God" the Word took on the "Savior" aspect when humanity fell. 

 
At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an 
inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us 
in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to say 
that humans were chosen in "Yah saves" before any were even 
created; i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, yet the 
name implies the eventual necessity. Bill
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I don't ask either of these questions Bill but 
  this is beside the point
  Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive 
  the Holy Spirit?"
  My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of 
  God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?"
   
  On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  

 
 
I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
yet failed to 
acknowledge.  
 
Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" 
you want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go 
unanswered. You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot 
answer without affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your 
question again, along with the context in which it was asked. I'll 
consider answering it then. 
 
Thanks, 
Bill
 
   -- 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, in a post moments ago, acknowledged that she cannot be but what she 
is. This is how I read Judy. This is how I accept Judy. I do find her to be 
REGULARLY but, UNINTENTIONALLY offensive to others. My concern would be that 
such has been pointed out to her often. She adopts a 'I must be true to the 
Scriptures' approach.



- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 07:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)



JD wrote:

Have I gone over your head with the use
of this phrase?  Look up ad hom and you
will find "begging the question" in there
somewhere.   You have no idea just how
ridiculous this makes you sound.


Please stop attacking Judy!  PLEASE!

You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad hom" and "begging 
the

question" are the same thing.  THEY ARE NOT.  I don't have the time right
now to educate you on the differences.  Maybe the moderator can help, or
maybe you can look it up for yourself.  Furthermore, "begging the 
question"

is allowed on TruthTalk.  It is not a good form of argumentation, but you
will not find me or any other moderator reprimanding someone on the list 
for

begging the question.  It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to
recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation.  The 
ad

hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive to this
fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the emotions of 
others

and causes posts like this one that you just made.

The reason you might have seen a list with "begging the question" and "ad
hom" together is because these are two different forms of fallacious
argumentation.  You were probably reading a list of fallacious arguments.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.  Please correct your misunderstanding of these 
terms.
Even if your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do 
so

from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who looks
ridiculous.

David Miller.

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


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





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

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

[TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




David,
I am speaking post DBR; in the book of Acts and in the 
Epistles we do not find the
great emphasis on the "incarnation" that we are hearing 
in some circules today.
The apostle Paul preached the cross and spoke to Festus of righteousness, 
temperance, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25) until Felix trembled and put off 
dealing with it until later.  Why didn't Paul speak to him of "incarnational ontology" 
so that he would feel better and not be so 
upset?
judyt
 
Judy wrote:> In the meantime though I would like to ask why> 
you and some of the others on TT put so much> emphasis on the 
"incarnation" when Paul and the> apostles preached the "cross"?  
Does this disparity> not ever bother you? Why didn't they go about 
everwhere> preaching the "incarnaton?"
 
Judy, the cross and the incarnation is related to each other.  The 
reason they did not preach the incarnation per se was because the 
incarnation of God was right there among them.  Furthermore, even now, 
I do not PREACH the incarnation.  I preach Christ.  However, I 
might TEACH about the incarnation to help our understanding of what made 
Jesus unique.
 
The apostle John wrote:
 
John 1:14(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we 
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of 
grace and truth.
 
This is the incarnation, Judy.  The Word was made flesh.
 
John also wrote the following:
 
1 John 4:2(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that 
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
 
Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?  If so, then 
you too believe in the Incarnation.
 
David Miller. 
 
--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him 
to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry




 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 1:02:01 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry

I have had several encounters with SPs over the years, Dean. And I have observed Kevin's approach to ministry here on TT, not to mention others who have drifted in and out over the last couple of years. And so, I will be the first to admit to a limited experience. Yes, I hung around and listened on more than one occasion, as I was curious to see the kinds of reactions their preaching provoked. And no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was but a segue to the soul of their message: "Repent, or be damn!" 
 
Having said that, I am opened to having misjudged Street Preachers as a whole, by the few I have encountered. That is why I am open to meeting you in N.O.
 
Bill
cd: I would like to add in Kevin"s defense-that this forum is limited in it's expressive forms-One cannot truly learn another on this site- Kevin has a big heart for the lost and I have seen him stand and discuss truth for hours with one individual-Great patience and love shown by Kevin but not seen on this site.

Re: [TruthTalk] More ad hom drivel




cd: Jd please quote the remaining couple of verses after Nephi 13:28 or I can do so if you wish?
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: Judy Taylor
Sent: 1/10/2006 7:53:02 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] More ad hom drivel

 
 
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

How ironic;
You "incarnational" folk can never point the finger at the Mormons because you are doing the exact same
thing when you tell others they can not know God or His Word unless they are Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance.
 
Bible 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:32:40 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

This came from an article written by someone else.  I had downloaded it on to a floppy.  It does seem to be an honest attempt at presenting Mormon doctrine.  Such is a difficult assignment..since the Mormon church is obviously reluctant to present its doctrine in a public forum.   The summation included in this post comes from a non-Mormon.   I cannot find this type of presentation from the Mormon Church.  But, maybe I am looking in the wrong places.   Time will tell.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


cd: Beautiful John and true -I have had each and every one of these articles presented to me in front of the temple in SLC by Mormons (notice the big letters Blaine- You have been giving the respect you wanted)-you may want to join us there and answer these articles for yourself ( in your own way)-Just walk down the street and hold a banner that says ' Jesus Saves" and they will come to you ( we will supply the banner of your choice)-there is room at the inn for you in SLC-if interested I will give you the dates.
 
 
 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/9/2006 11:04:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

The following is a summation of Mormon teaching.  The problem I have encountered is common to this article, as well.  And that is the difficulty in finding Mormon sites that speak officially for the  Mormon Church doctrine.   jd  (still looking )
 
  

Atonement 

"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, Sharing Time: The Atonement, Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.) 
"We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.) 
Baptism 

Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. 
Bible 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
Book of Mormon 

The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.) 
Devil, the 

The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.) 
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.) 
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.) 
God 

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321.  Joseph Smith,  Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.) 
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans..." (D&C 130:22). 
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.) 
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away th

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine




 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 8:30:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

If the 'Mormon Jesus' is comparable to Rudolph the red nosed reindeer who 'saved' the day for Santa one dark night then belief in such an one is pointless. DM appears to perceive little difference between his Jesus and DH's Jesus? 
CD: They are as both are Idols.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 10, 2006 08:04
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Yes I have.  And, over the years, your contribution has not help .  For example --  what is the official Mormon teaching on the atonement of Christ?  I have asked that question before, here on TT.  The answer?   Must be under the pickle!! 
 
I am beginning to believe that there is no Mormon teaching on the atonement of Christ save for the claim that the price was paid in the Garden !!  
 
Help.
 
jd
 
-- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The following is a summation of Mormon teaching.DAVEH:  I think this is a better and more accurate summation http://www.jefflindsay.com/art_faith.html.as some of what you've posted below that we believe is incorrect.that is the difficulty in finding Mormon sites that speak officially for the  Mormon Church doctrineDAVEH:   Did you ever ask a Mormon?   Try this, John..http://lds.org/I think this is the only website officially sanctioned by the Church HQ in SLC.  There are numerous apologetic sites, and many more sites for the individual Wards and Stakes of The Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  However, the above site is the only one that officially speaks for the Church itself.  All others are subject to opinions, as I understand it.  This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. DAVEH:   Re: 6-G.  So then why would it be included in what you indicate is a summation of Mormon teaching, John???  Where did you get this ..from a site critical of LDS theology?   Wouldn't it be better to get a summation of what LDS folks believe from an official LDS site?  May I suggest.http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1..which is a summation of our beliefs as explained by JS to a reporter by the name of Wentworth.  If you want to see some of the apologetic sites that do not represent the Church in an official sense, but yet seem to have a 
p retty good perspective on what LDS people believe, try these sites (which I think were previously mentioned).http://www.jefflindsay.com/ldslinks.shtmlhttp://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/http://www.fairlds.org/http://mormon.org/http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mormonis.htmhttp://www.farmsresearch.com/all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing of the Mormon church.DAVEH:  FWIW.Bruce R McConkie's Mormon Doctrine was less than favorably 
re ceived by the President of the Church (David O McKay) when it was first published.  Even though he was in good standing with the Church, due to the criticism of DOM, BRM had to significantly correct it prior to the second edition being published.  Other LDS authors have drawn similar criticisms, such as Pratt's The Seer, which contained many doctrinal errors.  Being a member in good standing hardly means that such authors will not make claims that are unsubstantiated, and hence sometimes assumed to be official doctrinewhich they are not necessarily.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

The following is a summation of Mormon teaching.  The problem I have encountered is common to this article, as well.  And that is the difficulty in finding Mormon sites that speak officially for the  Mormon Church doctrine.   jd  (still looking )
 
  

Atonement 

"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, Sharing Time: The Atonement, Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.) 
"We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.) 
Baptism 

Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. 
Bible 

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church. 
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28). 
Book of Mormon 

Th

Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

cd: Do a word search on" Grace" and note how often Paul uses that word in
the New Testament-and you have your reply Bro as it must be part of the
message -We are to preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified an absolute must-
I Cor. 1:23, 1 Cor 2:2.


> [Original Message]
> From: Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 1/10/2006 11:32:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
>
> Good questions, David. I am working on a reply.
>
> Bill
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:38 AM
> Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?
>
>
> > Bill wrote:
> > > no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really
> > > got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was
> > > but a segue to the soul of their message:
> > > "Repent, or be damn!"
> >
> > I have seen a few street preachers that focus on this message too, and
> > others who seem to speak of nothing but abortion.  Right now I am
focused
> on
> > preaching against an official state sanctioned department of immorality
at
> > the University of Florida called the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
> > Transgendered) Affairs department.  Sometimes students ask me why don't
I
> > address some other sins or other issues.  Well, the Lord sent me on this
> > mission and right now I am focused upon one thing, at least up through
> March
> > of this year.  They should talk to the Lord about why if they have a
> problem
> > with it.  I will for a minute or two address some other pressing issue,
> but
> > I am always pressed in my spirit not to turn aside from the mission God
> has
> > put on my heart.  As I engage the students in dialogue and debate, I am
> > always saying, "let's get back to why I'm here today..."
> >
> > My question to you is this.  The message, "Repent or be damned," is this
> not
> > part of the gospel that Jesus preached?  Is it not a part of the gospel
> that
> > most ministers neglect greatly?  You seem to speak about this message as
> > being excluded from the gospel when you say, "they never really got to
the
> > gospel."
> >
> > I realize that you might want to go to definitions about the word gospel
> > meaning "good news," but good news is always in a context.  If people do
> not
> > know they are damned by their sins, which is prevelant in this culture
of
> > lawlessness, then an emphasis of salvation is not a message of good
news.
> > It is simply a message of an archaic religion that most people find
> > unnecessary for life.
> >
> > Considering the actual record we have of what was preached, starting
with
> > John the Baptist, moving to Jesus, and then to his apostles, is the
> message,
> > "Repent or be damned" really not part of the gospel?  What do you think?
> >
> > Peace be with you.
> > David Miller.
> >
> > --
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> >
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.



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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




 
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:55:02 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  From: Judy Taylor 
  I don't ask either of these questions Bill but 
  this is beside the point 
   
  I'm thinking you do not realize how you "sound" to others, 
  Judy.
   
  No Bill I don't think it possible to know 
  how every person I speak to thinks.  All I can 
  possibly be is "me in the Lord" and ppl will 
  either accept or reject me as is; I have
  no control over that.  I know Paul tried 
  to speak as a Jew to the Jews etc. but we are
  all in the same culture here on TT so far as I 
  know  Your question to me was 
  
  "When did Jesus receive the Holy 
  Spirit?" My question to you is "Do you believe 
  
  the Word of God was/is full of the Holy 
  Spirit?" 
   
  Was?   Yes, from his baptism. 
  
   
  Had to have been before his baptism; his birth 
  was precipitated by the Holy Spirit
  and there was spiritual recognition between he 
  and John while both were in utero
  when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth.  
  The Spirit descending at his baptism was
  to anoint him for ministry.  Jewish men 
  were baptised and anointed for ministry as
  priests at age 33.  He fulfilled all righteousness.  
   
  Is?   Yes.
  
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
   
   
  I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
  yet failed to 
  acknowledge.  
   
  Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you 
  want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. 
  You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot answer without 
  affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your question again, 
  along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it 
  then. 
   
  Thanks, 
  Bill
   -- This message has been scanned for 
viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to 
be clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

I read you correctly. Yours is a distinction without a difference.

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 07:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Lance wrote:

DM accused me of blasphemy for simply pointing out that
you and he see something in certain scriptures that isn't there.

No, Lance, I pointed out that your assertion that Judy should not believe
that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth was blasphemous. 
Please

try to read me a little better, please.

David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

David's expression 'personally, I'm not so sure that...' is one he employs 
often. He does so rather than simply say 'Judy's position is my position'. 
I'm not so sure that this is not the case

.
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 08:07
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Judy wrote:

... they can not know God or His Word unless they are
Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance.

John wrote:

More ad hom and in this case a flasehood

Please try to leave some of the moderation to the moderator.  This is not 
an
ad hominem argument.  Discuss it in private if you disagree.  Judy is 
simply
communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on this 
forum

come across to her.  If her perception is faulty, please try to correct it
without attacking her.  Teach her in meekness and humility.  Personally, 
I'm

not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization.  We will
know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond.

David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

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

  Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:46 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)

  Oophs!  Possibly I should have said "God 
  the Word" - When IYO did He actually become Jesus?

  And you are saying that you asked me this question earlier 
  -- hm.    Well, Jesus means "Yah saves." If your theology 
  is such that the fall was either predetermined or inevitable from 
  eternity past, then God the Word was always Jesus, his identification as 
  such coming by revelation to Joseph. IF the fall was not one of those, 
  then "God" the Word took on the "Savior" aspect when humanity fell. 

  At this point in my sojourn I believe there was an 
  inevitability about the fall. Paul writes, "Blessed be the God and 
  Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... as He chose us 
  in Him before the foundation of the world"; that is to say 
  that humans were chosen in "Yah saves" before any were even 
  created; i.e., before any had done anything needy of salvation, yet the 
  name implies the eventual necessity. 

  Bill

  On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this 
is beside the point
Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the 
Holy Spirit?"
My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of 
God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?"

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
  yet failed to 
  acknowledge.  

  Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you 
  want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. 
  You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot answer without 
  affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your question again, 
  along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it 
  then. 

  Thanks, 
  Bill

 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Judy wrote:
>> ... they can not know God or His Word unless they are
>> Greek scholars and know every little translational nuance.

John wrote:
> More ad hom and in this case a flasehood

Please try to leave some of the moderation to the moderator.  This is not an 
ad hominem argument.  Discuss it in private if you disagree.  Judy is simply 
communicating what she perceives how some of the intellectuals on this forum 
come across to her.  If her perception is faulty, please try to correct it 
without attacking her.  Teach her in meekness and humility.  Personally, I'm 
not so sure she is too far off base with this characterization.  We will 
know the truth of it by how the intellectuals respond.

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Judy wrote:
> In the meantime though I would like to ask why
> you and some of the others on TT put so much
> emphasis on the "incarnation" when Paul and the
> apostles preached the "cross"?  Does this disparity
> not ever bother you? Why didn't they go about everwhere
> preaching the "incarnaton?"

Judy, the cross and the incarnation is related to each other.  The reason 
they did not preach the incarnation per se was because the incarnation of 
God was right there among them.  Furthermore, even now, I do not PREACH the 
incarnation.  I preach Christ.  However, I might TEACH about the incarnation 
to help our understanding of what made Jesus unique.

The apostle John wrote:

John 1:14
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his 
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and 
truth.

This is the incarnation, Judy.  The Word was made flesh.

John also wrote the following:

1 John 4:2
(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that 
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?  If so, then you too 
believe in the Incarnation.

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




myth (you are begging the question in your analysis below, assuming that 
the fathers hold no authority whatsoever, which is the assertion being made in 
the first place.)
 
David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:51 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)
  
  
  myth (a typically 
  empty esoteric equation--actually, an 'adherent' of the church fathers is 
  a ridiculous idea--a student of their residual impact could 
  conclude, like Calvin did, that 
  they remain invisibly intellectually influential, but (for 
  him, too, as for Bill) their authority per se is long 
  gone; but, by contrast, LDS adherence is today, to an ongoing 
  existential authority present to millions of Mormons and 
  enforced--an arrogance already arresting all ready aimlessly 
  academic Americans)
   
  On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:44:14 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:<>

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

JD wrote:
> Have I gone over your head with the use
> of this phrase?  Look up ad hom and you
> will find "begging the question" in there
> somewhere.   You have no idea just how
> ridiculous this makes you sound.

Please stop attacking Judy!  PLEASE!

You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad hom" and "begging the 
question" are the same thing.  THEY ARE NOT.  I don't have the time right 
now to educate you on the differences.  Maybe the moderator can help, or 
maybe you can look it up for yourself.  Furthermore, "begging the question" 
is allowed on TruthTalk.  It is not a good form of argumentation, but you 
will not find me or any other moderator reprimanding someone on the list for 
begging the question.  It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to 
recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation.  The ad 
hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive to this 
fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the emotions of others 
and causes posts like this one that you just made.

The reason you might have seen a list with "begging the question" and "ad 
hom" together is because these are two different forms of fallacious 
argumentation.  You were probably reading a list of fallacious arguments. 
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.  Please correct your misunderstanding of these terms. 
Even if your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do so 
from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who looks 
ridiculous.

David Miller.

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon doctrine

Lance wrote:
> DM accused me of blasphemy for simply pointing out that
> you and he see something in certain scriptures that isn't there.

No, Lance, I pointed out that your assertion that Judy should not believe 
that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth was blasphemous.  Please 
try to read me a little better, please.

David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Having so identified yourself, David, (more like Plato than Aristotle) you 
ought to object to  DM, not to me. You are, IMO, a  philosophical 
rationalist.

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: January 11, 2006 07:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Lance wrote:

There is but one on TT, Judy, whose wisdom is
the wisdom of Aristotle. That one would be DM.
Philsophy is to DM what the church fathers are
to some others.

Surely you know that I object to this characterization of me, Lance.  My
philosophy is more like Plato than Aristotle, but my philosophy and 
teaching

is more like Jesus Christ than anyone else that was ever born.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

Lance wrote:
> There is but one on TT, Judy, whose wisdom is
> the wisdom of Aristotle. That one would be DM.
> Philsophy is to DM what the church fathers are
> to some others.

Surely you know that I object to this characterization of me, Lance.  My 
philosophy is more like Plato than Aristotle, but my philosophy and teaching 
is more like Jesus Christ than anyone else that was ever born.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:14 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - 
  incarnate God (Judy)

  I don't ask either of these questions Bill but 
  this is beside the point 

  I'm thinking you do not realize how you "sound" to others, 
  Judy.

  Your question to me was "When did Jesus 
  receive the Holy Spirit?" My question to you is "Do 
  you believe the Word of God was/is full of the Holy Spirit?" 

  Was?   Yes, from his baptism. 

  Is?   Yes.

  On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
yet failed to 
acknowledge.  

Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you 
want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. 
You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot answer without 
affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your question again, 
along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it 
then. 

Thanks, 
Bill
 -- This message has been scanned for 
  viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry




 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 1:02:01 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry

I have had several encounters with SPs over the years, Dean. And I have observed Kevin's approach to ministry here on TT, not to mention others who have drifted in and out over the last couple of years. And so, I will be the first to admit to a limited experience. Yes, I hung around and listened on more than one occasion, as I was curious to see the kinds of reactions their preaching provoked. And no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was but a segue to the soul of their message: "Repent, or be damn!" 
 
Having said that, I am opened to having misjudged Street Preachers as a whole, by the few I have encountered. That is why I am open to meeting you in N.O.
 
Bill
  cd: Fair enough Bill-May God bless you. If one preaches the condemnation of the law of sin-then one must give the sinner a way out-which is Christ-to fail to do so is to leave a soul in torment not in a state of grace-This should be told to the next preachers you wittiness doing such.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormonism & Freemasonry


 
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/8/2006 12:49:41 PM 
Subject: 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.)
 
cd: Hello Bill. I cannot answer for all Street Preachers as I believe each person will give account for what they preach but we often try to help other preachers convey the truth by correction with love to a deeper understanding of Christ. I would like to know if this preacher spoke of Christ and grace or was it just Repent or you will go to hell". How much time did you listen to him preach?
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 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)




cd: You lost me again bro? Are you saying that you were joking about taking the words out of context or do you view my comment  on God giving you light in a higher way as a joke?
 

 

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/10/2006 11:00:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)

..or is it, Bro?
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..interestingly, humor doesn't appear to be confined to the KJV
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:01:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

you can define humor, Bro--what is it?
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:51:24 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


God bless you and give you his light in a higher way.:-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)




Oophs!  Possibly I should have said "God the Word" 
- When IYO did He actually become Jesus?
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:14:10 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I don't ask either of these questions Bill but this 
  is beside the point
  Your question to me was "When did Jesus receive the 
  Holy Spirit?"
  My question to you is "Do you believe the Word of God 
  was/is full of the Holy Spirit?"
   
  On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:01:52 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

 
 
I asked [Bill] a question ... he has as 
yet failed to 
acknowledge.  
 
Judy, I have reviewed your posts and do not know what "question" you 
want me to answer. You often ask rhetorical questions that go unanswered. 
You also ask wife-beating questions that I cannot answer without 
affirming a belief I do not hold. Please post your question again, 
along with the context in which it was asked. I'll consider answering it 
then. 
 
Thanks, 
Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)