date:20060129

I do, David. Stop whining and, get on with it, David.

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

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 00:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

Lance wrote:

When you and your daughter decide to exercise
free speech with respect to OP's life choices then,
expect that at least some of them will respond in a
less than considerate fashion. Duh!

I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law.  Speech is
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder.  You don't really believe in 
free

speech, do 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] Free Speech


David:

You live in a free country. IFO don't object to that which you, Christine 
et al engage in. I just believe that you ought to brief her on what to 
expect. Snakes bite, David. Poisonous snakes kill, David. Are you so 
thoroughly unaware of condition of your own nation, David?


You, along with Judy, seem easily to resort to accusations and name calling 
when running short of legitmate arguments, David. We understand, David.



- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 00:21
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech



My reaction is not surprise, Lance.  I consider their action to discpline
Christine to be outrageous and illegal.  You should feel the same way.  It
is a clear case of discrimination, and at the bottom of the letter is
written, an Equal Opportunity Institution.  What hypocrisy!

You ought also consider Christine's young age.  She does not expect this
kind of hatred from people who claim that we should love and tolerate
everybody.  She does not expect the lies and falsehoods.  So as a father, 
I
also deal with her weeping and hurt over this.  You respond with 
callousness
and a completely inept ability to understand the issues involved.  You 
also

seem to believe the false reports and false characterizations.  You often
remind me of the hypocrite Christians who object to us.

Just today, I was with Kevin Deegan in Tampa.  About ten of us were 
standing
on the sidewalk.  We were waiting there to regroup with some others.  A 
man

came out from a house nearby and began to tell us that we were on private
property and he wanted us to move on.  He did not want to see the banners.
At first I said that this was public property, not private, but we would 
be

moving along very soon.  Then I was prompted by the Spirit to deliver a
message.  I raised my hands, pointing toward heaven to Jesus, and I raised
my voice in preaching style and said, Sir, Jesus says that if you are
ashamed of him, he will be ashamed of you on the day of judgment when you
stand before him on that day.  He ignored me at first, so I said it 
again.
Then he looked at me directly, and so I said it a third time as I looked 
him
directly in the eyes. Then he asked me why I was dressed up, telling me 
that
I should look like him and have beads around my neck and a drink in my 
hand.

I said, there is nothing wrong with looking nice, is there?  He agreed
that I looked nice, and I smiled and walked over and shook his hand.  As I
talked with him a little, he warmed up and I placed my hand on his 
shoulder

in a loving way and asked him if I could pray with him.  He said sure, but
it was not necessary because he was fine.  I said, you are fine?  Yes,
he said, I am a minister, a Presbyterian ordained minister of the 
gospel.

Suddenly I knew why I was so motivated to tell him that Jesus would be
ashamed of him if he was ashamed of us standing out in front of his house.
What kind of Christianity is this?

I know you hate my little anecdotes which you take to be so full of pride,
but I just had to tell you this one because in many ways, this man makes 
me

think of you.

David Miller.


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech


No Judy, that is not my meaning. DM's post seemed to indicate surprise 
over

the school's response. Why? When one enters the 'fray' one ought to expect
persons to contest her point of view. She is a woman and, peer to many who
don't like what she is doing.
- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 11:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech


Are you intimating that Christine is harmful because she speaks the 
truth

in a public
setting Lance?  Sad that there is no honor or wisdom in these places of
learning ie:
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:11:44 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe
Christine.
If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat.
From: Judy Taylor

I, for one am apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the
University of
Florida - My how far we have fallen.  Where is the freedom of speech we 
are

promised
and why is it OK to promote every perversion publicly on this Campus but
God's Truth is
ridiculed and maligned?

I find it interesting that the ppl who came up to Christine in private to
agree with her stand
were too timid and fearful to support her publicly. This is truly
ominous

Christine is being persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It may be hard on the flesh but you should be rejoicing Christine that you
are counted
worthy to suffer for His Names sake...

God Bless you ...

judyt

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Shine away, David. God be with you and with Christine.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 00:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Lance, event preaching is a little different from campus preaching. 
Please
try not to confuse the two.  Furthermore, even at event preaching, we 
don't

condemn those in attendance.  We reprove, rebuke and exhort.  We wake up
Christians who are out there sinning, knowing that they really should not 
be

there.  We are a light in a dark place.

As for the testimonies, I don't post all of those because I know that 
people
like you will call it bragging and pride.  What I do is show the ugliness 
so

others in the Lord will see the need to let their light shine.  If we keep
the doctrine of Christ quiet, it is like the soldier in the battlefield
keeping his safety locked on his rifle and pointed down.  His weapon of
offense becomes nothing but decoration.  We believe that we should 
actually

use our weapon, which is the Word of God.

You might note that even Paul spoke of glorying in tribulation, and 
glorying

in infirmities, and in persecutions, and in distresses for Christ's sake.
Maybe you are not familiar with this kind of Christianity.  Personally, I
like it better than those ministers who compare score cards of how many
people said the sinner's prayer with them.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I'm so sorry Judy but, have you failed to read the recent posts concerning
Christine? Have you also failed to read of DM's many misadventures or, to
have seen the accompanying photographs? Here is some of the logic that
underpins that which they do: Let us go forth with T-shirts and 
accompanying
signage to some sinful event, condemn those in attendance and, 
thereafter
give testimonies of those who took offence with accompanying surprise. 
Now,

that's a bit of a charicature but, just a bit.
- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 07:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Imagination run amock Lance .. You have seen things that are not
there, they are constructs
of your own imagination.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:58:03 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
David Miller: putting Judy on trial, David? I've seen YOU go on over a
thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum. You've
demanded that said person humble themselves while offering up an apology
for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts. Gimmeeabreak,
David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your
offspring, believe yourselves called upon by God to get in the faces of
others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these 
groups

take offence and retaliate.

You claim to know the ways of the Lord, David. You, on some occasions,
act/speak/write as if just delivered by a midwife  (I'm guessing that to 
be

your preferred method.)

Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice, deliver a
lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans discernment.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Lance, why are you putting Judy on trial?  You could share these messages
with her in private you know.

David Miller
- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:24 AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak

To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times to the fact that if 
she
takes this position, then everybody who disagrees with her interpretation 
of
any passage must not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't give her 
pause

at all...

D

From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:04 AM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Scriptural Interpretation under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit? I trust
that every true believer prays for the Spirit's assistance in
reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER
ETC.The Scriptures are NOT
self-interpreting.

As I have said before many, many times Lance - God's Word needs no
interpreter  We

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You do! She does! You cannot see.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 00:52
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Lance wrote:

... those two (JT  DM) who esteem themselves more
highly than others with respect to their capacity to
infallibly read the Scriptures

I don't esteem myself this way, and I don't think Judy does either.

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] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Not in those words probably but, you do, I'm sure.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 01:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Judy wrote:

What is wrong with the following scenario
apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I
seriously doubt they say

Rest assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell.  I tell them
that I am on no better ground than they are.  The testimony of Jesus 
Christ

is what we bring.

People come under conviction and hear whatever they want to hear.  A few
weeks ago, a girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my banner 
to
her school.  I let her vent, but about the fifth time she started 
describing

my banner as condemning and horrible, I stopped her and said, wait a
minute, look at what the banner says... it says, 'JESUS WILL HEAL YOU'.
What is so condemning about that?  She was speechless then.  She saw what
she wanted to see through the bigoted stereotype of what she has been
trained to believe that public preachers are all about.  People believe 
the

lie so much that they can't see the truth when it is staring them in the
face.  I can understand how some of my banners might be misconstrued, but
this one is a message of hope.  Jesus will heal you.  Yet, even that 
message
is characterized as condemning and an infringement upon their liberty. 
They

should not have to look upon it with their eyes.  The same people who talk
about tolerance talk this way.  Amazing.

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] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

All right then, David, I'll drop getting in the face and insert pomposity, 
theologically ill-founded, legalistic and, self-righteous. Oh thou that 
callest another hypocrite...!

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 00:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Lance wrote:

It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along
with your offspring, believe yourselves called upon
by God to get in the faces of others with accompanying
signage then call for the cavalry when these groups take
offence and retaliate.

Are you going to say the same thing if someone were to kill me?  You don't
seem to understand the difference between speech and unlawfulness.

Let me clarify a little about this getting in the face.  This is a FALSE
characterization.  I am not going into someone's house and standing 
between
them and the movie they are watching and yelling at them.  I am standing 
in
a public area and inviting discussion and discourse.  They are free to 
walk

away if they are not interested or think that I'm a nut.

Lance wrote:

David. You, on some occasions,  act/speak/write
as if just delivered by a midwife  (I'm guessing that
to be your preferred method.)

LOL.  Now that's funny.  Actually, I don't use a midwife.  I deliver my
children without a midwife, just me and my wife in our home.

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] Free Speech

Your mind certainly works differently than my mind on this one, Gary.  If 
you do not have any reasonable expection that the lawless should obey the 
law, then there is no reason for preaching.  There is no reason to declare 
the law to the lawless.  And you put the prosecution of laws on shaky 
ground.  Why waste the money needed to prosecute if they will never obey the 
law.  Maybe we should just terminate them, eh?  If they are not going to 
obey the law, why even offer them grace and mercy?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

myth (that 'reasonable expectation' is false  essentially the essence of 
legalizm self-confirmed partic while your stated preaching/mission is 
directed specifically against lawbreakers lawlessness  lawbreaking)

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:24:51 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
I have a reasonable expectation that [everybody] should obey the law. 

--
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] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

I would welcome you elaborating upon this, whether private or public.  I say 
like David said when considering Goliath and having his brothers making 
similar accusations against him.  Is there not a cause?  You truly do not 
know who I am, Lance.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

All right then, David, I'll drop getting in the face and insert pomposity,
theologically ill-founded, legalistic and, self-righteous. Oh thou that
callest another hypocrite...!

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 00:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 Lance wrote:
 It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along
 with your offspring, believe yourselves called upon
 by God to get in the faces of others with accompanying
 signage then call for the cavalry when these groups take
 offence and retaliate.

 Are you going to say the same thing if someone were to kill me?  You don't
 seem to understand the difference between speech and unlawfulness.

 Let me clarify a little about this getting in the face.  This is a FALSE
 characterization.  I am not going into someone's house and standing
 between
 them and the movie they are watching and yelling at them.  I am standing
 in
 a public area and inviting discussion and discourse.  They are free to
 walk
 away if they are not interested or think that I'm a nut.

 Lance wrote:
 David. You, on some occasions,  act/speak/write
 as if just delivered by a midwife  (I'm guessing that
 to be your preferred method.)

 LOL.  Now that's funny.  Actually, I don't use a midwife.  I deliver my
 children without a midwife, just me and my wife in our home.

 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] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

You're wrong, Lance.  It is the attitude you express here which has promoted 
bigotry and a false stereotype in our culture so that anyone who wields the 
sword of God in society is viewed as being a hatemonger and a legalist who 
has evil motives for what they do.  Jesus Christ himself would not have 
gotten a fair review from you.

David Miller.

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Not in those words probably but, you do, I'm sure.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 01:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


 Judy wrote:
 What is wrong with the following scenario
 apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I
 seriously doubt they say

 Rest assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell.  I tell them
 that I am on no better ground than they are.  The testimony of Jesus
 Christ
 is what we bring.

 People come under conviction and hear whatever they want to hear.  A few
 weeks ago, a girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my banner
 to
 her school.  I let her vent, but about the fifth time she started
 describing
 my banner as condemning and horrible, I stopped her and said, wait a
 minute, look at what the banner says... it says, 'JESUS WILL HEAL YOU'.
 What is so condemning about that?  She was speechless then.  She saw what
 she wanted to see through the bigoted stereotype of what she has been
 trained to believe that public preachers are all about.  People believe
 the
 lie so much that they can't see the truth when it is staring them in the
 face.  I can understand how some of my banners might be misconstrued, but
 this one is a message of hope.  Jesus will heal you.  Yet, even that
 message
 is characterized as condemning and an infringement upon their liberty.
 They
 should not have to look upon it with their eyes.  The same people who talk
 about tolerance talk this way.  Amazing.

 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.

[TruthTalk] Free Speech




I don't believe you do understand Lance. What's more 
here you go again
with the accusations re name calling. What 
names?? David is describing a
scenario in FL that you were/are not a part of and now 
you are the expert.
Do you understand the freedoms in the US Bill of Rights 
Lance? Do you see
any hypocrisy in ppl who want to parade every 
perversion in the public square
but fiercly and violently reject any mention of 
morality, God, and truth? When I
was Christine's age I trusted everyone and she has been 
raised in a loving and
protective environment. What reason would she 
have to see every person as a
poisonous snake where is 
your empathy Lance?

From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David:

You live in a "free" country. IFO don't object to that which you, Christine 
et al engage in. I just believe that you ought to brief her on what to 
expect. Snakes bite, David. Poisonous snakes kill, David. Are you so 
thoroughly unaware of condition of your own nation, David?

You, along with Judy, seem easily to resort to accusations and name calling 
when running short of legitmate arguments, David. We understand, 
David.


From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 My reaction is not surprise, Lance. I consider their action to 
discpline Christine to be outrageous and illegal. You should feel 
the same way. It is a clear case of discrimination, and at the 
bottom of the letter is written, "an Equal Opportunity 
Institution." What hypocrisy! You ought also consider 
Christine's young age. She does not expect this kind of hatred 
from people who claim that we should love and tolerate everybody. 
She does not expect the lies and falsehoods. So as a father,  
I also deal with her weeping and hurt over this. You respond with 
 callousness and a completely inept ability to understand the 
issues involved. You  also seem to believe the false 
reports and false characterizations. You often remind me of the 
hypocrite Christians who object to us. Just today, I was with 
Kevin Deegan in Tampa. About ten of us were  standing on 
the sidewalk. We were waiting there to regroup with some others. A 
 man came out from a house nearby and began to tell us that we 
were on private property and he wanted us to move on. He did not 
want to see the banners. At first I said that this was public property, 
not private, but we would  be moving along very soon. Then 
I was prompted by the Spirit to deliver a message. I raised my 
hands, pointing toward heaven to Jesus, and I raised my voice in 
preaching style and said, "Sir, Jesus says that if you are ashamed of 
him, he will be ashamed of you on the day of judgment when you stand 
before him on that day." He ignored me at first, so I said it  
again. Then he looked at me directly, and so I said it a third time as I 
looked  him directly in the eyes. Then he asked me why I was 
dressed up, telling me  that I should look like him and have 
beads around my neck and a drink in my  hand. I said, "there is 
nothing wrong with looking nice, is there?" He agreed that I 
looked nice, and I smiled and walked over and shook his hand. As I 
talked with him a little, he warmed up and I placed my hand on his  
shoulder in a loving way and asked him if I could pray with him. 
He said sure, but it was not necessary because he was fine. I 
said, "you are fine?" "Yes," he said, "I am a minister, a 
Presbyterian ordained minister of the  gospel." Suddenly I knew 
why I was so motivated to tell him that Jesus would be ashamed of him if 
he was ashamed of us standing out in front of his house. What kind of 
Christianity is this? I know you hate my little anecdotes which 
you take to be so full of pride, but I just had to tell you this one 
because in many ways, this man makes  me think of 
you. David Miller. - Original 
Message -  From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free 
Speech No Judy, that is not my meaning. DM's post seemed 
to indicate surprise  over the school's response. Why? When one 
enters the 'fray' one ought to expect persons to contest her point of 
view. She is a woman and, peer to many who don't like what she is 
doing. - Original Message -  From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 28, 2006 11:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free 
Speech Are you intimating that Christine is "harmful" 
because she speaks the  truth in a public setting 
Lance? Sad that there is no honor or wisdom in these places of 
learning ie: "Professing themselves to be wise they became 
fools" On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:11:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to 
describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best 
be prepared for combat. From: Judy Taylor I, for one am 
apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the University 
of Florida - My how far we have fallen. Where is

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?






I don't think so Lance; I see you as the one with the 
eye problems. You come 
across on TT as one 
withoverweening pride but the reality is that you are someone
with very low self 
esteem. You appear to haveassurance but it is not the 
assurance
that comes through abiding in Him and having His Words 
abide in you.


On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:30:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: You do! She does! You cannot see. 
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance 
wrote:  ... those two (JT  DM) who esteem themselves 
more  highly than others with respect to their capacity 
to  "infallibly read" the Scriptures   I 
don't esteem myself this way, and I don't think Judy does  
either.   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] Was Jesus of God's Nature?






Hmmm - I'd be interested to go back two thousand years 
- wonder how John the
Baptist or even Jesus Himself would fare in your 
economy Lance? Ask yourself
what it is in you that seeks to malign God's servants 
and take a strong stand in 
favor of the enemies of all 
righteousness?


On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 03:29:15 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: All right then, David, I'll drop "getting in the face" and 
insert  pomposity,  theologically ill-founded, legalistic and, 
self-righteous. Oh thou  that  callest another 
hypocrite...!  From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Lance wrote:  It strikes me as strange that such as 
yourself, along  with your offspring, believe yourselves "called 
upon  by God" to get in the faces of others with 
accompanying  signage then call for the cavalry when these 
groups take  offence and retaliate.   
Are you going to say the same thing if someone were to kill me?  
You don't  seem to understand the difference between speech and 
 unlawfulness.   Let me clarify a little about 
this "getting in the face." This is  a FALSE  
characterization. I am not going into someone's house and  
standing   between  them and the movie they are watching 
and yelling at them. I am  standing   in  
a public area and inviting discussion and discourse. They are  
free to   walk  away if they are not interested or think 
that I'm a nut.   Lance wrote:  David. 
You, on some occasions, act/speak/write  as if just 
delivered by a midwife (I'm guessing that  to be your 
preferred method.)   LOL. Now that's funny. 
Actually, I don't use a midwife. I  deliver my  
children without a midwife, just me and my wife in our home. 
  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] Free Speech









- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/28/2006 9:12:13 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat. 

cd: Lance it's all in how one looks at the deed. One can say you are only causing problems by upsetting people with hard words or one can say that She is trying to helppeople escape the fires of hell-which is harmless as she is only promotion goodness-the same goodness Christ promoted with the same love to resist evil. To do nothing and allow this evil to spread is to drop the ball as a Christian. Christ preached much on hell and fear of God and against sin that harms the soul. Read the parables and notice how many carry that message. That is being wise and harmless-Christine is wise enough to serve God and harmless enough not to harm anyone except the evil she is battling by using only words-Gods words that you don't seem to like because sometime in life someone taught you the wrong way to preach/spread the gospel.You must remember that nobody is paying Christine to speak so this is Christian not being controlled by a modern so called church which is dropping the ball. Those that ref
use to heed Christians warnings are harming themselves-those that do are being set free from Satan. Jesus Christ preached to not fear the one that can destroy thebody but rather fear the One who can destroy both the body and soul in hell. IfI preach this message how can that ever be wrong? How can I point out sin without identifying what sin is? How can I speak of salvation in Christ Jesus without tell others why one needs saved?Saved from what? With most people (many are on the broad road to hell) I only have just a minute at most to give this warning as they go by in death-many don't even make it home from the events we preach at and don't know the gospel-only the watered down version-if that? How do you suggest I do this in that amount of time? Maybe this: God sent down his only begotten Son to save you from the fires of Hell-repent of sin and have life!" Know this Lance if you fail to warn them on that day it you will give account of your inaction-and they who crossed you path will be trying to blame you or anybody 
they can to avoid the punishment as they look at others in the lake of fire? I think you should be wiseby rethinking this and stop condemning those that warn others by preaching the message God told us to preach both by the Bible and by the Spirit. Respectful you should also fear God Lance-because you will be there as the ungodly are being tossed into the lake of fire and will have to answer for your condemning words at that time. Be wise as a serpent and slow down on the things that can harm the soul. I will be praying that you receive this in the love that it is sent and that God will forgive you for speaking against the young tender Christians that speak out boldly for Him. Ifthese words fall to the ground and fail in your heart consider that the ungodly hate Him and are at war against Him and Christine is speaking for Him against the ungodly.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 28, 2006 09:05
Subject: [TruthTalk] Free Speech


I, for one am apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the University of
Florida - My how far we have fallen. Where is the freedom of speech we are promised
and why is it OK to promote every perversion publicly on this Campus but God's Truth is
ridiculed and maligned?

I find it interesting that the ppl who came up to Christine in private to agree with her stand
were too timid and fearful to support her publicly. This is truly ominous

Christine is being persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It may be hard on the flesh but you should be rejoicing Christine that you are counted
worthy to suffer for His Names sake...

God Bless you ...

judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?




cd: Lance I speak well of Judy and like the truth that she writes.




- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/28/2006 9:08:37 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

LOL!! Certainly no danger of that happening to you on TT, Judy.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 28, 2006 08:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?



On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:40:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Some might draw a comparison between the 'witch of Endor" and you but, I'd not place myself alongside such, Judy. You do appear to have some sort of 'gift' for wrong descriptions of many on TT. 

I can't recall describing anyone on TT, let alone many.

These back-and-forthis this morning JT, are simply an informed opinion regarding you. 

Now, now Lance - what is it you have been saying about DM esteeming himself and his own opinions, tut, tut??

I've said this often of you. You strike me as a profoundly genuine; deeply committed believer. You are, IMO, in bondage to your "rightness".That, IMO, is downright sad.

Well Lance, I have to follow my own conscience. Lord forbid that I would hang my eternal destiny on any man's opinion ... including my own because these are not the ones that count ie: "Beware when all men speak well
of you"

From: Judy Taylor 


On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:07:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Even the 'exalted one' had a 'revelation' concerning BT. It was favourable concerning his 'living out the gospel'. Did you forget that?

That was HIS revelation- not mine. My experience with BT has been anything but favourable and pleasant.

Have you failed to read, from all of the aforementioned, life anecdotes? I thought that 'see'rscould 'see'. As Dennie Crane would say, upon receipt of an email from any one of the 'bad guys' 'lock and load'.

I've read lots of words .. I wouldn't call them "life anecdotes". When you say "seer" are you thinking like "witch of Endor?" Where is this gift inNew Covenant economy?

From: Judy Taylor 

Very hard to tell Lance because noone you mention ie G, BT, DS etc. revealthemselves; what I read from them
is mostly their opinions (of others)-glowing ones aboutfavorite theologians and/or critical onesconcerning 
myself and many times DM. DS does produce a little essay now and then which is well written but still centers
aroundher and her opinion ... Do they live out the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to determine this?


On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:33:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also?

From: Judy Taylor 

Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or
no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes
from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God
says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny
about that. He tends to hide Himself from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT  DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest"

From: Judy Taylor 

You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also 
perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks 
sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God 
and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

From: Debbie Sawczak 

For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. 
She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D
From: Taylor 


What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings.

FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 Rev.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him
will I give power over the nations

 [Original Message]
 From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/29/2006 9:08:36 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]  Was Jesus of God's Nature?

  [Original Message]
  From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Date: 1/29/2006 1:01:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]  Was Jesus of God's Nature?

  Judy wrote:
   What is wrong with the following scenario
   apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I
   seriously doubt they say

  Rest assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell.  I tell
them 
  that I am on no better ground than they are.  The testimony of Jesus
Christ 
  is what we bring.

  People come under conviction and hear whatever they want to hear.  A
few 
  weeks ago, a girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my
banner to 
  her school.  I let her vent, but about the fifth time she started
describing 
  my banner as condemning and horrible, I stopped her and said, wait a 
  minute, look at what the banner says... it says, 'JESUS WILL HEAL YOU'. 
  What is so condemning about that?  She was speechless then.  She saw
what 
  she wanted to see through the bigoted stereotype of what she has been 
  trained to believe that public preachers are all about.  People believe
the 
  lie so much that they can't see the truth when it is staring them in
the 
  face.  I can understand how some of my banners might be misconstrued,
but 
  this one is a message of hope.  Jesus will heal you.  Yet, even that
message 
  is characterized as condemning and an infringement upon their liberty. 
They 
  should not have to look upon it with their eyes.  The same people who
talk 
  about tolerance talk this way.  Amazing.

 cd: Lance I share this in hope you will understand us and those that
oppose God and themselves. I have been focusing on WCU for preaching lately
and last week I did something different. Normally I stand on a concrete
half-moon seat and preach Jesus to a crowd. This trip I decided to go into
the crowd by allowing them to gather in a complete circle around me and in
front of this mass- that closed tightly around me as it grew- was a young
lady who was press with a couple of feet of me and I preached that Jesus
can heal everyone in this crowd if they were willing to turn from sin to
him. I had a sandwich that said Turn From Sin and Truth Jesus This young
lady very angry shouted at me : Why don't you tell people to turn from sin
and trust Jesus. I then pointed at the sign on my torso two/three feet away
from her and asked her: What are you not getting? I have also explained
many, many time (hundreds,thousands?) on the difference between judging
and judging harshly I hand out copied verses on the subject-read verses
on the subject-give examples of Judging situations of how one can and
cannot Judge. Yet the same people at the end of the day will continue
accuse me of Judging because I point out that this type of sinner will go
to the lake of fire if they continue doing or promoting this ungodly act.
Whether it be Sodomy or Lying or ...etc.  The point of this is Satan can
and will steal the seed before it abodes in the heart that is why people
need to hear the massage often. David is stating the facts to you
correctly. Christine is doing, acting ,and speaking correctly.What you
should be concerned about is if any negatively stops her from doing God's
work or even offends her?

--
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] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/28/2006 1:08:32 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm

and your ISP isn't incapacitated  computer didn't crash, eh?
cd: No but something flashed-not sure if it was the computer or realization that I understood-have you received other confirmation or have I been giving another gift:-)

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


cd: Wow I understand Gary

Re: [TruthTalk] beginning




 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/26/2006 9:17:56 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] beginning

 Dean wrote:
  Another man of one book J.Wesley ...

 John Wesley was not a man of one book.  He read other books constantly, 
 just as Paul did.  What is meant by your quotes is that in the context of 
 that particular ministry to the people being talked about, the preaching 
 focused upon Jesus Christ and nothing else
---

  cd: David for me this is the same thing. Every thing revolves around the
Bible and any view opposed to that view is not acceptable-including the
earth being older than the genealogies point it out to be? The other book
one studies will lead to questions that allow the Holy Ghost to answer-then
one has revelation. J.Wesley did state that he wasa man of one book.
---

 David Miller wrote:
  I do not believe in a pre-existent creation.  I simply
  believe that the earth is very old, primarily for Biblical
  reasons.  From my perspective, the Scriptures seem
  to assert an ancient foundation for the earth.

 cd:
  I would like to see this scripture?

 Such a teaching can get rather involved, and it does involve some
personal 
 revelation, but following are a few passages.

 Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the 
 heavens are the work of thy hands.
 Eze 26:20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the
pit, 
 with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the 
 earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that 
 thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
---
cd: Pre-flood and creation reference v.20 is speaking of those who drowned
in flood ending with Christ reference.
-
 2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God
the 
 heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the 
 water:
--
cd:Genesis Creation reference.
---
 Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, 
 if thou hast understanding.
 Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath 
 stretched the line upon it?
 Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the 
 corner stone thereof;
 Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God 
 shouted for joy?

--
cd: Answer: Neither Job nor I was here to judge God on his works.
---
 cd:
  In my view that would mean that the older
  salt water would have to disappear somewhere
  in very large volumes?

 No, you are assuming that the old earth was basically in the same shape
and 
 form that it is now, with oceans of saltwater and continents.  Genesis
1:2 
 says that the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the 
 face of the deep.  The subsequent account specifies the separation of
land 
 from water, which I believe took place much later than the actual
creation 
 of the earth itself.  In other words, between Genesis 1:1  1:2 was a
great 
 amount of timecd: No as 
--
cd: Why would it take time for God to add order to disorded?Would he have
to wait till the disorder fashioned itself to certain stage that He would
be able to use for order-if so would He be God that can do all things
except sin?
-

 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] Free Speech






for Dean, too, the 
biblicity crucial to radical protestantism sounds like this--test it in 
public again, see what happens:

[1.]
..[standing before you today with 
no]reasonable expectation that the lawless 
shouldobey thelaw[..] there is 
no reason todeclare the law to the lawless..

[2.]
[however, even 
whilewe do]not..obey the law, [God offers 
us]grace and mercy

[3.]
and,ftr, even 
to those whoappear toobey the law, God offers only grace  
mercy..

[4.]
..he offers 
himself, his presencein Jesus Christ himself,through whose 
Spirit,y/ours, today,are the riches of his kingdom;
for like the 
biblical Apostles, (e.g.)I am crucified with Christ..Christ, who gave 
himself for me, actually lives in me..

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]  Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 Judy wrote:
  ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean
  also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim
  that Jesus' humanity so called included an Adamic
  sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is
  the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today,
  and forever)and that He is the second Adam.

 Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as believers are raised up together in heavenly 
 places in Christ Jesus.  So in Christ, we too are from heaven so to
speak 
 now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we do not have
within 
 our bodies a sinful nature.  We must die to that sinful nature daily,
even 
 as Jesus did.  It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus
struggled 
 against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not live a life of self 
 denial.  To think that the Lord of glory would command us to do what he 
 himself never had to do I truly think you will be apologizing to
Jesus 
 one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and
women 
 of low estate.  It is like someone climbing into the pig sty to save a
pig, 
 and then his wife or someone close to that person claiming that he never
got 
 dirty when he did it.  They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest
that 
 their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty.  Well, maybe he is 
 insulted that this person does not recognize the sacrifice and
condescension 
 he underwent to save the pig.  Maybe he would prefer for people to 
 understand the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig.

cd: In the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as you use
it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the need to be
cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself so to use Him (ie
:someone in the above) in this manner is error. David do you believe that
we grow to a deeper area of sanctification to where even the thoughts of
sin can be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ as being more Holy than
this type of holiness.Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross
thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against
sin in His members- for victory.

 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] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm




cd: I think I was wanting to know your explanation of what a radical protestant is. I will tell if you will- deal?My example is DaveH-what is yours?




- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/28/2006 1:10:33 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm

all ears here, Bro

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


my view of what a radical protestant is

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 11:52:00 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech



for Dean, too, the biblicity crucial to radical protestantism sounds like this--test it in public again, see what happens:

[1.]
..[standing before you today with no]reasonable expectation that the lawless shouldobey thelaw[..] there is 
no reason todeclare the law to the lawless..

[2.]
[however, even whilewe do]not..obey the law, [God offers us]grace and mercy

[3.]

m 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 
and,ftr, even to those whoappear toobey the law, God offers only grace  mercy..[4.]
..he offers himself, his presencein Jesus Christ himself,through whose Spirit,y/ours, today,are the riches of his kingdom;
for like the biblical Apostles, (e.g.)I am crucified with Christ..Christ, who gave himself for me, actually lives in me..

J.Wesley wrote:
Rom 7:9 - And I was once alive without the law - Without the close application of it. I had much life, wisdom, virtue, strength: so I thought. But when the commandment - That is, the law, a part put for the whole; but this _expression_ particularly intimates its compulsive force, which restrains, enjoins, urges, forbids, threatens. Came - In its spiritual meaning, to my heart, with the power of God. Sin revived, and I died - My inbred sin took fire, and all my virtue and strength died away; and I then saw myself to be dead in sin, and liable to death eternal.

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating
Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members-
for victory.

You might want to rethink that one, Dean:

For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God
did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of
sin: He condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8.3).



- Original Message -
From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?





  [Original Message]
  From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]  Was Jesus of God's Nature?
 
  Judy wrote:
   ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean
   also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim
   that Jesus' humanity so called included an Adamic
   sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is
   the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today,
   and forever)and that He is the second Adam.
 
  Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as believers are raised up together in
heavenly
  places in Christ Jesus.  So in Christ, we too are from heaven so to
 speak
  now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we do not have
 within
  our bodies a sinful nature.  We must die to that sinful nature daily,
 even
  as Jesus did.  It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus
 struggled
  against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not live a life of
self
  denial.  To think that the Lord of glory would command us to do what he
  himself never had to do I truly think you will be apologizing to
 Jesus
  one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and
 women
  of low estate.  It is like someone climbing into the pig sty to save a
 pig,
  and then his wife or someone close to that person claiming that he never
 got
  dirty when he did it.  They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest
 that
  their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty.  Well, maybe he is
  insulted that this person does not recognize the sacrifice and
 condescension
  he underwent to save the pig.  Maybe he would prefer for people to
  understand the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig.

 cd: In the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as you
use
 it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the need to be
 cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself so to use Him
(ie
 :someone in the above) in this manner is error. David do you believe that
 we grow to a deeper area of sanctification to where even the thoughts of
 sin can be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ as being more Holy
than
 this type of holiness.Christ came in the lower state for death on the
cross
 thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against
 sin in His members- for victory.
 
  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.

 --
 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.

[TruthTalk] emailing: benny the thief

Rev.2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations

Title: Benny Hinn

November 01, 2005

Heresy Happens! Truth Matters!

It is important to recognize two indisputable facts about
Benny Hinn's ministry: (1) He has no formal theological education
nor has he attended even a non-accredited Bible School. (2) He is
part of the Word of Faith Movement as opposed to the Signs
Wonders Movement. There are some distinct differences between the
two. Benny has made the statements that he visits the tombs of K.
Khulman and A. Simple MacPhearson to get a recharge of his
anointing. That alone is pretty spooky stuff folks!

The following two articles come from http://rapidnet.com/~jbeard
Biblical Discernment Ministry is an excellent site for reference
material on individual ministries. They provide a free newsletter
as well.

Pros Cons*

Benny Hinn, pastor of Orlando Christian Center in
Orlando, Florida, is one of the most prolific voices in the
Christian media today. His book, Good Morning, Holy Spirit,
has remained on the bestseller list since its release in October,
1990, having sold approximately one-quarter million copies within
the first few months. As of this writing (May, 1992), it is still
number one among paperback books according to Christian Reading,
one of the major trade publications for Christian bookstores,
distributors, and publishers.

Due to some rather startling statements in the original
edition of Good Morning,Holy Spirit, Hinn came under
fire from a few organizations that perceived serious doctrinal
discrepancies in Hinn's theology.

The most public criticism of Hinn's teachings came from the
Christian Research Institute which took Hinn and his publisher,
Thomas Nelson Company, to task for what CRI perceived as
heretical statements. This resulted in Nelson revising the
questionable material in its later releases and Hinn apologizing
and promising not to promote in the future the teachings under
question. However, Thomas Nelson Company spokesman Bruce Barbour
(publisher) and Bill Watkins (senior editor) as well as Hinn, say
that the theology expressed in the original edition has not been
changed but merely clarified.

Yet Hinn does claim to have changed his mind about other
teachings not dealt with in Good Morning,Holy Spirit, most
notably the Jesus-died-spiritually heresy that has
characterized the theology of word-faith teachers from E. W.
Kenyon through Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and others.

In spite of these developments, many Christians are still
questioning where Benny Hinn is coming from. And in view of his
continued popularity within the Christian marketplace, we felt
that an analysis of Hinn's teachings is in order. We also feel
that much of the criticism leveled against Hinn has been based
not on scriptural truth, but upon orthodoxy--traditionally
accepted understanding of issues not necessarily addressed in
clear terms by Scripture. It is our hope to set these differences
apart.

The Man

Benny Hinn was born in 1953 in Israel to a Greek father and an
Armenian mother. He was raised in the Greek Orthodox religion.
Hinn claims that while he was a young boy of 11 years of age in
Israel, God first appeared to him, and has been appearing to him
ever since. At the age of 14, Hinn moved to Canada with his
parents. While attending high school there he says he had visions
of himself preaching before huge crowds. He also claims that God
healed him of a stuttering problem so that he could become a
preacher.

Yet in spite of the visions and God's appearing to him for
several years, Hinn marks the year of his being born again as
1972 when he was about 20 years old. It was at a Kathryn Kuhlman
service the following year that he says he had a profound
spiritual experience.

Hinn readily admits that much of the misunderstanding that has
arisen from his teachings is the result of his lack of formal
Bible training. In fact, almost immediately after his having been
born again, Hinn says, The Lord launched me
into ministry almost overnight.

In spite of these circumstances, Hinn founded his present
church, Orlando Christian Center, in 1983. Beginning with just a
few hundred members, that church now boasts an average weekly
attendance of over 7,000. In addition, Hinn conducts worldwide
crusades and has a daily television program that airs over the
Trinity Broadcasting Network, headed by Jan and Paul Crouch.

Although Hinn states that his ministry throughout the 1970s
was shaped by the writings of men like D. L. Moody and R. A.
Torrey, he was a strong proponent of revelation
knowledge--new truths revealed to him by God directly--that
were not contained within Scripture. Only recently has he stated
that he will no longer claim revelation knowledge as the
authority for his teachings.

More than this, Hinn claims to actually be a channel for
God--that God enters him and takes over his mind and tongue to

[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?





It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking 
Bill:

"Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance 
orsimilitude"
A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it 
resembles one.
Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 2:7, 
Romans 8:3)
From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote: 
Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby 
defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His 
members-for victory.

Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean:

"For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, 
Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful 
flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 
8.3).


From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's 
Nature?


  [Original Message]  From: 
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was 
Jesus of God's Nature?   Judy wrote:   
ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean   also) for 
the ppl mentioned above to make the claim   that Jesus' humanity 
"so called" included an Adamic   sinful nature when scripture 
clearly records that he is   the Lord from heaven (the same 
yesterday, today,   and forever)and that He is the second 
Adam.   Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as believers are 
raised up together inheavenly  places in Christ Jesus. So 
in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to speak  now that we 
are in Christ, but this does not mean that we do not have within 
 our bodies a sinful nature. We must die to that sinful nature 
daily, even  as Jesus did. It is insulting to me that 
you do not think Jesus struggled  against the temptations of 
his flesh, that he did not live a life ofself  denial. To 
think that the Lord of glory would command us to do what he  himself 
never had to do I truly think you will be apologizing to 
Jesus  one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us 
men and women  of low estate. It is like someone 
climbing into the pig sty to save a pig,  and then his wife 
or someone close to that person claiming that he never got  
dirty when he did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare 
suggest that  their loved one ever appeared in public filthy 
dirty. Well, maybe he is  insulted that this person does not 
recognize the sacrifice and condescension  he underwent to 
save the pig. Maybe he would prefer for people to  understand 
the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig. cd: 
In the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as 
youuse it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the 
need to be cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself so 
to use Him(ie :someone" in the above) in this manner is error. David 
do you believe that we grow to a deeper area of sanctification to where 
even the thoughts of sin can be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ 
as being more Holythan this type of holiness.Christ came in the 
lower state for death on thecross thereby defeating Satan-for 
victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members- for 
victory.   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 mayknow 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 afriend 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.

Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech 
thingy

Is the picket'n'preach 
thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and 
whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to 
characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain 
people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the 
preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. 
They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of 
course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to 
moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point 
all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent 
to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate 
one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the 
offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further 
offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with 
the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you 
tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to 
divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or 
driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help 
any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t 
intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private 
moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, 
it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what 
constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain 
things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter 
of the law when it comes to the limits of that property.
Even if the message 
itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not 
just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under 
which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like 
the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know 
when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite 
the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. 
There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for 
example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the 
person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind 
of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the 
person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of 
signage.
It’s also no surprise 
that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on 
offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more 
homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a 
core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our 
culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to get too morally 
stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally 
superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural convention from 
their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be taken aback if I 
get roundly told off for not observing it among them! 
But in any case 
David's other post suggests that he and others engaging in such activity glory 
in their persecutions. If so, what’s the argument? I thought they were 
expressing chagrin at the persecution? (What ever happened to the 
shake-the-dust-off-your-sandals principle?)
That's likely already 
more words than this issue is worth, Lance, so I’ll stop 
blathering! 
D 

-Original 
Message- From: 
Lance Muir [HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:17 AM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's 
Nature? 
- Original Message 
- From: "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: January 29, 2006 
01:01 Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? 
 Judy wrote: 
 What is wrong with the 
following scenario  apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I 
 seriously doubt they 
say   Rest 
assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell. I tell 
them  that I am 
on no better ground than they are. The testimony of Jesus 

Christ  is what 
we bring.   
People come under conviction and hear whatever they want to hear. A 
few  weeks ago, a 
girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my banner 
 to 
 her school. I let her 
vent, but about the

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Preach this at the University of Florida, Super
Bowl and Mardis Gras, David. New signs/t-shirts "THE ZIRCON
JESUS"

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

Sent: January 29, 2006 14:30
Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?

It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking
Bill:

"Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance
orsimilitude"
A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it
resembles one.
Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 2:7,
Romans 8:3)
From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote:
Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby
defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in
His members-for victory.

Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean:

"For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,
Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom
8.3).

From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?

[Original Message] From:
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote:
ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean
also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that
Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature
when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from
heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and that He
is the second Adam. Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as
believers are raised up together inheavenly places in Christ
Jesus. So in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to
speak now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we
do not have within our bodies a sinful nature. We
must die to that sinful nature daily, even as Jesus
did. It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus
struggled against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not
live a life ofself denial. To think that the Lord of
glory would command us to do what he himself never had to do
I truly think you will be apologizing to Jesus one day
for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and
women of low estate. It is like someone climbing into the
pig sty to save a pig, and then his wife or someone close
to that person claiming that he never got dirty when he
did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest
that their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty.
Well, maybe he is insulted that this person does not recognize
the sacrifice and condescension he underwent to save the
pig. Maybe he would prefer for people to understand the
humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig. cd: In
the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as
youuse it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the
need to be cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself
so to use Him(ie :someone" in the above) in this manner is error.
David do you believe that we grow to a deeper area of sanctification
to where even the thoughts of sin can be kept at a distance? I do and
view Christ as being more Holythan this type of holiness.Christ
came in the lower state for death on thecross thereby defeating
Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His
members- for victory. 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 mayknow 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 afriend 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,

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?




Real cute Lance, about on par with the "dancing 
trinity"

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:10:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Preach this at the University of Florida, Super 
  Bowl and Mardis Gras, David. New signs/t-shirts "THE ZIRCON 
  JESUS"
  
From: Judy Taylor 

It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking 
Bill:

"Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance 
orsimilitude"
A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it 
resembles one.
Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 
2:7, Romans 8:3)
From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote: 
Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby 
defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in 
His members-for victory.

Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean:

"For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, 
Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of 
sinful flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" 
(Rom 8.3).


From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
God's Nature?


  [Original Message]  From: 
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Was Jesus of God's Nature?   Judy wrote: 
  ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean  
 also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim   
that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic   sinful 
nature when scripture clearly records that he is   the Lord 
from heaven (the same yesterday, today,   and forever)and 
that He is the second Adam.   Eph. 2:6 speaks of how 
we as believers are raised up together inheavenly  places in 
Christ Jesus. So in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to 
speak  now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we 
do not have within  our bodies a sinful nature. We 
must die to that sinful nature daily, even  as Jesus 
did. It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus 
struggled  against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not 
live a life ofself  denial. To think that the Lord of 
glory would command us to do what he  himself never had to 
do I truly think you will be apologizing to Jesus  
one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and 
women  of low estate. It is like someone climbing into the 
pig sty to save a pig,  and then his wife or someone 
close to that person claiming that he never got  dirty 
when he did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare 
suggest that  their loved one ever appeared in public 
filthy dirty. Well, maybe he is  insulted that this person 
does not recognize the sacrifice and condescension  he 
underwent to save the pig. Maybe he would prefer for people to 
 understand the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the 
pig. cd: In the parable of a clean swine returning to his 
filth (dirt-as youuse it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ 
never sinned for the need to be cleansed or return to sin or ever 
got any dirt on Himself so to use Him(ie :someone" in the above) 
in this manner is error. David do you believe that we grow to a 
deeper area of sanctification to where even the thoughts of sin can 
be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ as being more 
Holythan this type of holiness.Christ came in the lower state 
for death on thecross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to 
spend His life warring against sin in His members- for 
victory.   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 
mayknow 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 afriend 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech






then in reality, 
point 2, below,is true--lawproduces sin in everybody, obedience in 
nobody, ever--this is radically Protestant, Bro

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:06:55 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  '..sin by the commandment[becomes] exceeding 
  sinful..'
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 11:52:00 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free 
Speech


||

[2.]
[however, 
even whilewe do]not..obey the law, 
[God 
offers us]grace and 
mercy

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use theF word.

As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and
doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was
that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made
heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity,
you have no understandingof the issues involved here.

David Miller

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

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40
PM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy

- Original Message -
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech
thingy

Is the
picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of
its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part,
I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something
offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence
and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive
and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it
is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as
addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your
underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that
which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current
point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to
be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep
them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point
and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all
the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite
or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider
foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That
one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the
offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to
conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s
how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on
what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”.
And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property,
you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the
limits of that property.
Even if the message
itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not
just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under
which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like
the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know
when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite
the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation.
There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for
example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the
person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind
of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with
the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of
signage.
It’s also no
surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the
line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a
little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness
being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are
influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to
get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout
as morally superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural
convention from their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be
taken aback if I get roundly told off for not observing it among them!

But in any case
David's other post suggests that he and others engaging in such activity glory
in their persecutions. If so, what’s the argument? I thought they were
expressing chagrin at the persecution? (What ever happened to the
shake-the-dust-off-your-sandals principle?)
That's likely
already more words than this issue is worth, Lance, so I’ll stop
blathering!
D

-Original
Message- From:
Lance Muir [HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 29,

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 5:06:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech



then in reality, point 2, below,is true--lawproduces sin in everybody, obedience in nobody, ever--this is radically Protestant, Bro
cd: Yes,I think so but this is also limited to the audience it addresses. For example- the ignorant who don't know their left from their right will greatly benefit from this grace and mercy but those whom know better and have received grace are limited in their atonement benefits-esp those who are mature and know better. Just my scripture based opinion:-) Good reason to preach grace and mercy in Christ-asGod lead me to doFriday.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:06:55 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


'..sin by the commandment[becomes] exceeding sinful..'

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 11:52:00 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech


||

[2.]
[however, even whilewe do]not..obey the law, [God offers us]grace and mercy

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm




Bro, does 
yourthinkingduplicate others in which Wesley, a theologian, has been 
eliminated from his scholars' 'quadrilateral' andreplaced with a 
philosopher?

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:57 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  cd: I think I was wanting to know your explanation of what a 
  radical protestant is. I will tell if you will- deal?My example is DaveH-what 
  is yours?
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/28/2006 1:10:33 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
Quadrilateral.htm

all ears here, 
Bro

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  my view of what a radical protestant 
  is

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech




then you're too 
astute to be radically Protestant, Bro?


On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:42:44 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
   [except in] the ignorant who don't know 
  their left from their right
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 5:06:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free 
Speech


then in 
reality, point 2, below,is true--lawproduces sin in everybody, 
obedience in nobody, ever--this is radically Protestant, 
Bro
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 [Original Message]
 From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]  Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating
 Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His
members-
 for victory.

 You might want to rethink that one, Dean:

 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God
 did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of
 sin: He condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8.3).

cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weak
in our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the likeness of that flesh but
the law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?
Then here's another verse to help.
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. 
His death was the victory not His life.

--
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] Was Jesus of God's Nature?




Amen!
Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a 
blessing you are in the Lord...

From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I 
think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our 
flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law 
worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?
Then here's another verse to help.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we 
were yetsinners, Christ died for us. 
His death was the victory not His 
life.



 From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the 
cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring 
against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might 
want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do 
in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in 
the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the 
flesh" (Rom 8.3).

cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only 
weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" 
butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my 
view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God 
commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ 
died for us. His death was the victory not His life.


--"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] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 5:48:08 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm

Bro, does yourthinkingduplicate others in which Wesley, a theologian, has been eliminated from his scholars' 'quadrilateral' andreplaced with a philosopher?

cd: No it does not and that wasn't the only thing wrong with the "quadrilateral"-but to point them out now would in my opinion complicate the issue.The same with Baxter-but now isn't the time.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:57 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


cd: I think I was wanting to know your explanation of what a radical protestant is. I will tell if you will- deal?My example is DaveH-what is yours?




- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/28/2006 1:10:33 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm

all ears here, Bro

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


my view of what a radical protestant is

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech




cd: DavidM what is the difference between your words to Lance concerning public preaching and your stance concerning preachers at B.Hinn?It seems to me you are doing the same thing as Lancewas doing to Christine.Did you know that Kevin- whom you preached with in Florida- and Ruben are leaders who organize preaching at Hinn events? Did you wittiness anything wrong with Kevin's preaching in Florida?Do you think that he is of a jealous and envious nature?How about Ruben and his nature?How about the stance you took on our preaching at the temple in SLC how is that different from the stance taken against you daughter? Maybe you know how we feel now?

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm




so why'd you bring 
up DaveH as your 'example'in the context of this thread, 
Bro?

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:18:35 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 5:48:08 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
Quadrilateral.htm

Bro, does 
yourthinkingduplicate others in which Wesley, a 
theologian, has been eliminated from his scholars' 
'quadrilateral' andreplaced with a philosopher?

cd: No it does not and that wasn't the only 
thing wrong with the "quadrilateral"-but to point them out now would in my 
opinion complicate the issue...

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:57 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  ..My example is DaveH-what is yours?
  
  
  ||

RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?









- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 6:18:57 PM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Amen!
Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord..

cd: Thanks sister-you are a blessing to me also-The writing that you did concerning the second man Adam should convince anyone who doesn't hold a bias.The second man Adam clearly was different from the first man Adam.He was strong with sanctification whereas the first man Adam wasn't-We were of the first while Jesus was of the second-No higher Priesthood exists.

From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?
Then here's another verse to help.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. 
His death was the victory not His life.



 From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3).

cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life.


--"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] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 6:39:50 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm

so why'd you bring up DaveH as your 'example'in the context of this thread, Bro?
cd: Because he is a radical Protestant. His faith is a "splinter" from the protestant movement and he is out on the edge and teaches such radical ideas.Baptism for the dead? Think about it?

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:18:35 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


- Original Message - 

From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 5:48:08 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm

Bro, does yourthinkingduplicate others in which Wesley, a theologian, has been eliminated from his scholars' 'quadrilateral' andreplaced with a philosopher?

cd: No it does not and that wasn't the only thing wrong with the "quadrilateral"-but to point them out now would in my opinion complicate the issue...

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:57 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


..My example is DaveH-what is yours?


||

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm




myth (DaveHs 
pplare content topublish thatJCs Momma acts like aporn 
super star)

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:59:17 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Because[DaveH] is a radical Protestant. His faith is a 
  "splinter" from the protestant movement
  
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 6:39:50 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
Quadrilateral.htm

so why'd you 
bring up DaveH as your 'example'in the context of this thread, 
Bro?
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

cd wrote:
 DavidM what is the difference between
 your words to Lance concerning public
 preaching and your stance concerning
 preachers at B.Hinn?

I can hardly believe you are asking me this question.  It is not a sin to 
attend a Benny Hinn service seeking for a healing from God.  It is a sin for 
the University to promote and indoctrinate students to engage in homosexual 
fornication.

CD wrote:
 It seems to me you are doing the same
 thing as Lance was doing to Christine.

There are some differences.  I'm not reading newspaper accounts and 
concluding from them false ideas about what the protestors of Benny Hinn are 
doing.  I react from what Paul Mitchell described about it.  Nevertheless, 
the biggest problem is the context.  Homosexual behavior is a sin, but 
seeking a healing from God at a Benny Hinn meeting is not.  Even if it is 
misguided, it is not a sin.

CD wrote:
 Did you know that Kevin- whom you preached
 with in Florida- and Ruben are leaders who
 organize preaching at Hinn events?

No, I did not know that.  Ruben and I have worked events for a lot of years 
now.  He has apparently had the wisdom to keep this from me.  If he ever did 
let such be known, he probably knows that I would rebuke him for it.

CD wrote:
 Did you wittiness anything wrong with
 Kevin's preaching in Florida?

Dean, he was witnessing to people partying, getting drunk, and looking for 
sin.  Of course, I did not witness anything wrong with his ministry.  The 
people who go to a Benny Hinn service are not looking to commit sin.  I 
can't understand why you don't see the difference.

CD wrote:
 Do you think that he is of a jealous
 and envious nature?

No.  I already told you that my comments concerned other preachers who have 
told me of what they have done.

CD wrote:
 How about Ruben and his nature?

No.

CD wrote:
 How about the stance you took on our
 preaching at the temple in SLC how is
 that different from the stance taken against
 you daughter?

I have always supported the preaching at the temple in SLC, so there is a 
lot of difference, Dean.  I don't understand why you always make out like 
I'm against you and street preachers.  It is very strange.

CD wrote:
 Maybe you know how we feel now?

Now I know how you feel about what?  I don't understand.

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] Tolerance Offense




There are two approaches to the problem of people being offended. One 
approach is to have speakers work hard at not ever offending anyone. I 
call this the feminine approach. It basically emasculates society and 
suppresses free speech.

The other approach is to teach people to be tolerant and not to take 
offense when someone presents a strong argument. I think this is the 
better approach. Obviously people should not be so insensitive that they 
railroad over people, but our society as become way too feminized when signs in 
public places that promote righteousness and serving God offend them.

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] A christ unlike that of promise






It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking Bill: 
"Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance 
orsimilitude" A zircon is not a diamond - it is 
a "likeness", it resembles one. Jesus was made in the 
likeness of men (see Phil 2:7, Romans 8:3)

Yours is a poor definition 
in this instance, Judy, because it does not take into consideration the actual 
physical nature of Christ's humanity: that Jesus was born of the fruit of 
David's genitals according to the flesh, and that he was the one physical 
descendant of Abraham to whom the promises were made:

  Now to Abraham and his 
  Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but 
  as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.And this I say, that the 
  law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant 
  that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of 
  no effect.For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of 
  promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.What purpose then does 
  the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed 
  should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through 
  angels by the hand of a mediator. -- Galatians 3.16-19
TheChrist 
ofpromise was Abraham's physical descendent, Judy: he was Abraham's 
Sperma, the one to whom the promise was made; and he 
isthe fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh. Your 
Christ does not share in David's flesh, nor is he the physical descendant 
ofAbraham, so yours does not fulfill the promise made to either man; 
hence, as John tells you, it is anti-Christ to believe as you do:"By this 
you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has 
come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus 
Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of 
anti-Christ, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the 
world."

While your christ may 
"resemble" the one of Scripture,heisnot the real thing. Yours 
is a zircon jesus, Judy,a christ unlikethe Christ 
of promise. Youreally ought to repent.

Bill

  

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:30 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's 
  Nature?
  
  
  It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking 
  Bill:
  
  "Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance 
  orsimilitude"
  A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it 
  resembles one.
  Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 2:7, 
  Romans 8:3)
  From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote: 
  Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby 
  defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in 
  His members-for victory.
  
  Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean:
  
  "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, 
  Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of 
  sinful flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 
  8.3).
  
  
  From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  
[Original Message]  From: 
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Was Jesus of God's Nature?   Judy wrote:  
   ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean   
  also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim   that 
  Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic   sinful nature 
  when scripture clearly records that he is   the Lord from 
  heaven (the same yesterday, today,   and forever)and that He 
  is the second Adam.   Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as 
  believers are raised up together inheavenly  places in Christ 
  Jesus. So in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to 
  speak  now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we 
  do not have within  our bodies a sinful nature. We 
  must die to that sinful nature daily, even  as Jesus 
  did. It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus 
  struggled  against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not 
  live a life ofself  denial. To think that the Lord of 
  glory would command us to do what he  himself never had to do 
  I truly think you will be apologizing to Jesus  one day 
  for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and 
  women  of low estate. It is like someone climbing into the 
  pig sty to save a pig,  and then his wife or someone close 
  to that person claiming that he never got  dirty when he 
  did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest 
  that  their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty. 
  Well, maybe he is  insulted that this person does not recognize 
  the sacrifice and condescension  he underwent to save the 
  pig. Maybe he

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?





If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his 
descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are 
way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, 
kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow 
him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:52 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of 
  God's Nature?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 6:18:57 PM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's 
Nature?

Amen!
Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, 
what a blessing you are in the Lord..

cd: Thanks sister-you are a blessing to me also-The writing that you 
did concerning the second man Adam should convince anyone who doesn't hold a 
bias.The second man Adam clearly was different from the first man Adam.He 
was strong with sanctification whereas the first man Adam wasn't-We were of 
the first while Jesus was of the second-No higher Priesthood exists.

From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I 
think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our 
flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe 
law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my 
view-disagree?
Then here's another verse to help.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while 
we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. 
His death was the victory not His 
life.



 From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus 
of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on 
the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life 
warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. 
You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law 
could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by 
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of 
sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3).

cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only 
weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that 
flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my 
view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But 
God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, 
Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His 
life.


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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

His death was the victory not His
life.

Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it
have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would.
The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and
resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest
that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants
were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out
and Christ is not the Victor you imagine.

Bill

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

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?

Amen!
Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what
a blessing you are in the Lord...

From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I
think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our
flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe
law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?
Then here's another verse to help.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while
we were yetsinners, Christ died for us.
His death was the victory not His
life.

From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the
cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life
warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory.
You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law
could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending
His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He
condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3).

cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only
weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that
flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my
view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God
commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ
died for us. His death was the victory not His life.

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


Something else, Dean. It has occurred to me that you and Judy believe in two Adams , neither of which is Christ. You have Adam before the "fall" a totally different kind of being than the Adam after the falll. Such is nowhere discussed in scripture. If I asked for a scripture that speaks to the creaturely Adam as changed in terms of human nature and physical being, you couldn't do - so I will not ask. What bothers me is that that this failure does not bother you while, at the same time, preaching against "adding to or taking from the meaning (words) " of the revealation of God. 

Secondly, we know that Christ was like us, in every respect. That is the declaration of scripture. You and Judy apparently enjoy camping on "Like" for the purpose of showing the rest of us that He is not like us !!! What is the point of Hebrews 2:14-18 if it is not that He is an effective minister to us because He knows what it is like to be human -- like us?? I do not think you can answer this question. 





-- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties.To know the Jesus of Scripture, you needknow him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?







- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/29/2006 6:18:57 PM 
Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

Amen!
Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord..

cd: Thanks sister-you are a blessing to me also-The writing that you did concerning the second man Adam should convince anyone who doesn't hold a bias.The second man Adam clearly was different from the first man Adam.He was strong with sanctification whereas the first man Adam wasn't-We were of the first while Jesus was of the second-No higher Priesthood exists.

From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?
Then here's another verse to help.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. 
His death was the victory not His life.



 From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3).

cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life.


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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy


Just for the record -- Debbie's point is without debate. The kind of SP that calls names and passes harsh judgment is neither biblical nor deserving of consideration within the Christian community. I find it rather humorous to hear SPs huddle in their little corner of the world, cuss, throw glows, and generally make fools of themselves -- all in the name of the Lord, of course -- and then present that they are not underserving of pesecuation. More than than - their contribution to the over-all effect of evangelism by the Church Catholic is so minor as to be nothing more than a blip in time. They could all stop preaching tomorrow and the "significance " of their collective effort would not be missed. 

In this valley (where I live)  - SPs are not supported because of the unpredictable nature of their rhetoric and the harm they engender towards the Church. 

jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use theF word. 

As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understandingof the issues involved here. 

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy


- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? Its not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, Im in no rush to characterize it that way. But hes surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. Theyd argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think thats been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, its to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offencefree speech or not. This is a
 separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isnt intended to protect peoples right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least thats how we see it in Canada. Of course, its no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an attack and what constitutes a private moral choice. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property.
Even if the message itself is not offensive, theres still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are rules about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often cant express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like Jesus can heal you, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage.
Its also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe theres a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of oursfor better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I dont think is appropriate is to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally superior per se a custom that is

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


He is like us in every respect. According to you, this means that he is not like us, only similar to us. 

When we speak of human beings, we can only speak of "being like" another. There is no other way of saying it !! Either I am like you or I am you. There are no other choices. And when the man says "like you in every respect" you deny the biblical witness . The fact of the matter is this -- you do not believe that He was like us at all !!!

Did He have the same nature we have? No (according to you.) WouldHe actually be tempted as we are ? No. Did He have to disciplineHimself when it came to matters of lusts,dishonesty, conceit? No DidHe have to learn the issues ofhuman life? No  When a child, was he likeall other children? No So how is it that He is similar to us IN EVERY RESPECT when you deny that He islike us at all???

jd

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


It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking Bill:

"Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance orsimilitude"
A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it resembles one.
Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 2:7, Romans 8:3)
From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote: Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members-for victory.

Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean:

"For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3).


From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?


  [Original Message]  From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?   Judy wrote:   ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean   also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim   that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic   sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is   the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today,   and forever)and that He is the second Adam.   Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as believers are raised up together inheavenly  places in Christ Jesus. So in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to speak  now that
 we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we do not have within  our bodies a sinful nature. We must die to that sinful nature daily, even  as Jesus did. It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus struggled  against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not live a life ofself  denial. To think that the Lord of glory would command us to do what he  himself never had to do I truly think you will be apologizing to Jesus  one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and women  of low estate. It is like someone climbing into the pig sty to save a pig,  and then his wife or someone close to that person claiming that he never got  dirty when he did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest that  their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty. Well, maybe he is  insulted that this person does not recognize the sacrifice and condescension  he underwent to save the pig. Maybe he would prefer for people to  understand the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig. cd: In the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as youuse it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the need to be cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself so to use Him(ie :someone" in the above) in this manner is error. David do you believe that we grow to a deeper area of sanctification to where even the thoughts of sin can be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ as being more Holythan this type of holiness.Christ came in the lower state for death on thecross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members- for victory.   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 mayknow 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 toLeaveTruth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech

Ours is not a ministry of law. We are not about the preaching of Law. unless, of course, you confuse "law" the rule of the Spirit of Christ. Law and Spirit are two very different things.But, of course, you know this.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your mind certainly works differently than my mind on this one, Gary. If you do not have any reasonable expection that the lawless should obey the law, then there is no reason for preaching. There is no reason to declare the law to the lawless. And you put the prosecution of laws on shaky ground. Why waste the money needed to prosecute if they will never obey the law. Maybe we should just terminate them, eh? If they are not going to obey the law, why even offer them grace and mercy? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech myth (that 'reasonable expectation' is fa
lse essentially the essence of legalizm self-confirmed partic while your stated preaching/mission is directed specifically against lawbreakers lawlessness lawbreaking) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:24:51 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have a reasonable expectation that [everybody] should obey the law. -- "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] The spirit of anti-Christ





"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to 
dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times 
and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, 
in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far 
from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. 
. ."(Acts 17.26-28a) 
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch 
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this 
day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an 
oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He 
would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Siblings,
It is rebellion to deny the physical lineage of Christ. He is the 
second Adam precisely because he is of Adam's blood: through Eve to Seth, and 
Noah, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Judah, and David to Jesus 
throughMary. To deny this is to deny that Christ came in the flesh at all. 
John tells us that it is anti-Christ to hold and promote such a belief; indeed, 
it isthe spirit of rebellion. 
Please take heed the words ofChrist, exalted to David's 
throne:"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the 
churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and 
Morning Star." -- Rev 22.16
Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ






On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  '..I am [the Root and] the 
  Offspring of David..'

Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?



As I have said before many, many times Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need understanding, the
scriptures are to be "understood" rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He turns it off
or on according to the condition of the heart. God is not mocked jt


Judy (and others)uses I Cor 2:10 - 16 to make her point. 

The Spirit is given that we might understand the "things freely given to us by God" (2:12). And what were these things "freely given to us by God" in AD 60? I can tell you what Paul does not reference in this passage -- the Bible. He is not talking about the Spirit revealing spiritual truths from scripture.Interpreting scripture has nothing to do with the I Co 2 text and those who claim illumination should know this !!

The "things" mentioned in ver 13, 14 and 15 are those "things freely given to us by God" in verse 12. What is freely given to us? Simple , unmerited grace, the vicarious death of Christ on our behalf, the Father's decision to no longer consider our transgressions . all of this is centered in the foolishnessofthe cross (2:2). The Spirit's work of revelatory understanding is directed to those who are mature in the Lord (2:6) as it concerns the effects of the cross inthe lives of those who receive His death and are motivated and controlled by His Spirit.


jd

Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ

Precisely!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of 
  anti-Christ

  On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

'..I am [the Root and] the 
Offspring of David..'-- This 
  message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be 
  clean.

Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

2006-01-29 Thread Dave







DAVEH:  Why are street preachers such proponents of free
speech  when it benefits them.. 

You don't really believe in free speech, do you.

..yet are so opposed to it...

please do not forward posts to us that use the F word.

 when it offends them?  

    When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during
Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do
not appreciate their offending tactics.  Then SPers cry foul when they
perceive their rights to free speech
being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street.

    



David Miller wrote:

  RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
  
  
  
  Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. 
  
   
  David Miller


I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law.  Speech is 
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as 
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder.  You don't really believe in free 
speech, do you.

David Miller. 



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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm

2006-01-29 Thread Dave





DAVEH:  :-D 

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  cd: I think I was wanting to know your explanation of
what a radical protestant is. I will tell if you will- deal?My example
is DaveH-what is yours?
  
  

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

  
  my view of what a radical
protestant is
  

all
ears here, Bro


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

Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ


Come on guys - He is only similar to the offspring of David. 

-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 





On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


'..I am [the Root and] the Offspring of David..'

Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David