RE: [TruthTalk] Evangelism
Terry, David got them from E-Sword. Use this link: http://www.e-sword.net/files/setup752.exe Then go to this page http://www.e-sword.net/extras.html and download http://www.e-sword.net/files/extras/ante-nicene.exe. 9 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers await you. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 6:33 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism David, is there some place on the web where I can read more of this? Terry David Miller wrote: > "Recognitions of Clement," >Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 8. It is an account attributed to Clement of >Rome telling how he came to meet Peter by first hearing Barnabas preach in >Rome. His description of the preaching of Barnabas sounds exactly like what >us street preachers do. I offer it as evidence that the early preachers did >utilize public preaching in the streets of the city, and that the crowds got >rowdy for them just like it does for us. > >Peace be with you. >David Miller. > >"Recognitions of Clement" Book 1, Chapters 7-10 >Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8
RE: [TruthTalk] Bookman
Hi Judy, If you go way back in the archives you will see a review that I did for this book. Below are some web resources. http://cana.userworld.com/cana_DaVinciCode.html http://www.fpcboulder.org/images/ministries/adult/davinci.pdf Scroll down to the bottom where they list a number of pretty good resources and reviews. These should help you come to grasp with the essential teachings this ‘fiction’ book popularizes. Basic premise: Jesus and Mary Magdalene marry secretly and have a baby girl. This girl is hidden by a sect within the Roman Catholic Church. This girl (referred to as the sacred feminine) is actually the Holy Grail. This is rediscovered in the present day. The book is based upon subtle and not so subtle Gnostic teachings. For the record it is rather a fun read if one was able to lay aside the theology he is trumpeting. It is because it is fun (nice short chapters with hooks at the end of each of them that make you want to read the next one) that it is so popular and therefore possibly dangerous. Take a quick visit to www.amazon.com and look up this book. There are a number of lists of Christian sources. For example: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785260463/qid=1106141811/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-5117825-4600018?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/92FAYWN05Y7U/ref=cm_bg_dp_m_2/002-5117825-4600018 Hope this helps. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:55 AM To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Bookman Say Lance (the Bookman), do you sell and/or have you read the DaVinci code and if so do you have an opinion about it? Aso anyone else on TT. My neice in Australia is reading it and she is totally anti Bible, anti Church that my interest has been tweaked because she says she "likes" it. jt -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 12/26/2004 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 12/26/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Nicene Creed and Truthtalk Members
Click here: http://www.e-sword.net/files/setup752.exe From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:53 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Nicene Creed and Truthtalk Members Okay……which thingy do I click on for the concordance??? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:25 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Nicene Creed and Truthtalk Members http://www.immanuelhomepage.org/Downloads.html -Original Message- From: ShieldsFamily Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.01 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Nicene Creed and Truthtalk Members Could you kindly forward the exact link to the esword.com location which you use for a concordance? I get lost when I look for it at esword.com. Thanks, Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Nicene Creed and Truthtalk Members
Addendum that should have been included in my original post: Judy, if I have mischaracterized any of your beliefs please clarify them. There was no intent on my part to disparage you but instead to fairly state what I see you believing. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] The Nicene Creed and Truthtalk Members Welcome to the forum Gregory. You should know that Judy denies the Nicene Creed mostly based on bad exegesis on her part and a huge misunderstanding of the history behind the creed of all creeds. Judy is also an Arian with a subtle split between God and Jesus. She is vehement in denying the eternal Sonship of Christ (as are Terry, DavidM and sometimes Izzy) and also/therefore denies the Trinity – she does have some concept of the Godhead but not in the classical sense that Christians have believed as delivered by the apostles and church fathers. In other words, Judy believes and practices many of the heresies that the Nicene Creed was developed for. Although she has been asked three times for the statement of faith from her place of worship she refuses to send it (this is probably because of one or two reasons: one she may not attend a local assembly or two she knows that she is in deep conflict with it). It is very difficult to get a hold of her theology and learn where it has been developed from. Much of it is Calvinist (although she is completely unaware of this and has deep disdain for Calvin himself) and there are strains of covenant theology as well. There is a deep hatred towards the Catholic Church which in her mind includes the church from the 2nd century forwards (in opposition to the church catholic). She (as well as others on this forum) are against learning the Bible in the original languages and prefer the King James version. Attempts are finding out what the writer was trying to convey in the original languages are usually met with scorn. She believes that humankind are mostly spirit beings and is deeply convinced that the Greek view (read non-Hebraic, non-biblical) of body, soul and spirit is Christian as well. That being said, Judy knows her Bible better than most on this forum and will converse with you at length about almost anything; she will do her research. She is also always sincere even when we sense that her tone is not. Perhaps she is like the rest of us with our massive hodgepodge of beliefs. If you check the archives there are a lot of posts on this matter of a number of people on this forum being outside of historical orthodoxy. Those that are outside are awfully proud of it, wearing it as a badge of honor. They will tell you that they put scripture first and in a way they do. Unfortunately they put the Bible before Jesus Christ. Without a proper hermeneutic (taking all things and subjecting them to the Person of Jesus Christ [including the scriptures]) they end up practicing religion instead of a relationship. Let us note that by accuracy or precision in knowledge is not meant some narrow Biblicist way of thinking and speaking about God. Accurate or precise knowledge of God is not gained by stringing together biblical statements but by allowing our thought to be informed and determined by the truth of God to which they direct us. To regard biblical statements as divine assertions does not mean that they are immediately intelligible, for they have to be interpreted in the light of the truth to which they refer, and in accordance with which our interpretations of them must be tested. Hence we have to think out for ourselves what they mean in the light of that reference. This does not mean that we have to leave behind the guidance of the Holy Scriptures through which alone God’s revelation is mediated to us, but that we refuse to be content with reproducing the mere letter of the biblical statements in our determination to rest our thinking and speaking upon the truth of God himself who addresses us through those biblical statements. This means that we have to decide what we ourselves say of the truth under the direction of the biblical statements, and how we are to formulate our statements in such a way that they are established as true through their adequacy to the truth itself. This involves what Athanasius called a ‘freedom of religious discourse’ on the basis of the Holy Scriptures when we pass beyond what they literally say to the truth of God which they convey, and seek to express that as accurately and precisely as we can. And we dare not do that except in the most cautious and reverent way and with much prayer. (T.F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith, pg. 57) I have read your posts with interest Gregory. You are a welcome addition to this dysfunctional family. I do not post much anymore but hope to converse with you in the future. One easy way to get me out of
[TruthTalk] The Nicene Creed and Truthtalk Members
Welcome to the forum Gregory. You should know that Judy denies the Nicene Creed mostly based on bad exegesis on her part and a huge misunderstanding of the history behind the creed of all creeds. Judy is also an Arian with a subtle split between God and Jesus. She is vehement in denying the eternal Sonship of Christ (as are Terry, DavidM and sometimes Izzy) and also/therefore denies the Trinity – she does have some concept of the Godhead but not in the classical sense that Christians have believed as delivered by the apostles and church fathers. In other words, Judy believes and practices many of the heresies that the Nicene Creed was developed for. Although she has been asked three times for the statement of faith from her place of worship she refuses to send it (this is probably because of one or two reasons: one she may not attend a local assembly or two she knows that she is in deep conflict with it). It is very difficult to get a hold of her theology and learn where it has been developed from. Much of it is Calvinist (although she is completely unaware of this and has deep disdain for Calvin himself) and there are strains of covenant theology as well. There is a deep hatred towards the Catholic Church which in her mind includes the church from the 2nd century forwards (in opposition to the church catholic). She (as well as others on this forum) are against learning the Bible in the original languages and prefer the King James version. Attempts are finding out what the writer was trying to convey in the original languages are usually met with scorn. She believes that humankind are mostly spirit beings and is deeply convinced that the Greek view (read non-Hebraic, non-biblical) of body, soul and spirit is Christian as well. That being said, Judy knows her Bible better than most on this forum and will converse with you at length about almost anything; she will do her research. She is also always sincere even when we sense that her tone is not. Perhaps she is like the rest of us with our massive hodgepodge of beliefs. If you check the archives there are a lot of posts on this matter of a number of people on this forum being outside of historical orthodoxy. Those that are outside are awfully proud of it, wearing it as a badge of honor. They will tell you that they put scripture first and in a way they do. Unfortunately they put the Bible before Jesus Christ. Without a proper hermeneutic (taking all things and subjecting them to the Person of Jesus Christ [including the scriptures]) they end up practicing religion instead of a relationship. Let us note that by accuracy or precision in knowledge is not meant some narrow Biblicist way of thinking and speaking about God. Accurate or precise knowledge of God is not gained by stringing together biblical statements but by allowing our thought to be informed and determined by the truth of God to which they direct us. To regard biblical statements as divine assertions does not mean that they are immediately intelligible, for they have to be interpreted in the light of the truth to which they refer, and in accordance with which our interpretations of them must be tested. Hence we have to think out for ourselves what they mean in the light of that reference. This does not mean that we have to leave behind the guidance of the Holy Scriptures through which alone God’s revelation is mediated to us, but that we refuse to be content with reproducing the mere letter of the biblical statements in our determination to rest our thinking and speaking upon the truth of God himself who addresses us through those biblical statements. This means that we have to decide what we ourselves say of the truth under the direction of the biblical statements, and how we are to formulate our statements in such a way that they are established as true through their adequacy to the truth itself. This involves what Athanasius called a ‘freedom of religious discourse’ on the basis of the Holy Scriptures when we pass beyond what they literally say to the truth of God which they convey, and seek to express that as accurately and precisely as we can. And we dare not do that except in the most cautious and reverent way and with much prayer. (T.F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith, pg. 57) I have read your posts with interest Gregory. You are a welcome addition to this dysfunctional family. I do not post much anymore but hope to converse with you in the future. One easy way to get me out of the woodwork is to mention the Nicene Creed J Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory A. Hession J.D. Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 5:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly of nearly every bishop in the church, bathed in prayer, and intent on dealing with heresy which had attempted to demean the nature of Christ. I assume they go
RE: [TruthTalk] Bill says goodbye?
Terry, you are such a prick. It is bad enough that Judy monopolizes the idiot portion of this forum to have you tack on such an insensitive comment. You are an embarrassment to this forum. Jonathan 'ticked off at how people have treated Bill, ticked off at how the hypocrite and lying Judy gets away with everything, ticked off at all the stupid posts day in and day out, ticked off that I love you people anyways' Hughes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:59 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bill says goodbye? David Miller wrote: >Bill Taylor wrote: > > >>Good bye, everyone. I hope that you >>were at least to a certain degree edified >>by my contribution. I pray the best for >>you all. >> >> >I have greatly appreciated your contribution. I consider you to be the >greatest theologian on TruthTalk. I sure hope you are not saying goodbye >permanently. >Please consider being patient with us, Bill. Even those who express great >disagreement with you are challenged to think upon what you are saying. >=== > > Not all of us, David. Terry --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] On Echad
Hi Slade, If I understand the Jewish mind correctly God is utterly transcendent, beyond our feeble grasp, and beyond definition. I believe this is an essential aspect of God that the evangelical church has laid aside. However, I believe that Jesus changes/fulfills the Older Testament view of transcendence. If Jesus is truly God then God has condescended to enter space and time and make Himself available in a way that is far more intimate and intense than the Older Testament. My view of the Older Testament is one of God giving us the mental furniture, the Word and Face that is then given light in the Person of Jesus Christ. Torrance calls Israel the ‘womb of the incarnation’. It is this Hebraic mindset and understanding that you, Kay, and Jeff provide on this forum that I find so helpful. Thank you. The Nicene theologians were not slow to appreciate the basic revolution in knowledge of God that had taken place in Jesus Christ, through whom as Mediator between God and man we who are far off from God are brought near and are actually given access to Him. That is to say, with the incarnation of His Son in Jesus Christ, God in Himself is no longer closed to us, but has opened Himself to our knowledge in His own being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for what He has revealed of Himself to us through Christ and in the Spirit He is in Himself. Hence we may now enter into personal communion with God without being limited by our creaturely incapacities or being obstructed by our alienation, because of what God in His love has done for us and our salvation in Jesus Christ and because of the gift of His Holy Spirit, the indwelling presence of God Himself. Thus through Christ Jesus and in the Spirit whether we are Jews or Gentiles we ma enter within the veil, and know God in the inner relations of His own sublime being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (T.F. Torrance, ‘The Trinitarian Faith’, pg. 68.) Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:34 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad The reason for the brevity is because the answer required brevity. To go further would simply force my foot in my mouth or my words may stumble into apostasy. G-d is s big I cannot begin to define even His edges, were they to exist. However, does the Newer Testament give more insight into the Holy One? Absolutely! Any commentary gives insight into a subject... how much more does the Newer Testament, as the Inspired "Commentary" on the Older Testament, give insight into the Older Testament! -- slade -Original Message----- From: Jonathan Hughes Sent: Wednesday, 12 January, 2005 20.20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad Hi Slade, I realize that your one word answer is most likely a result of busyness. If I can tweak any more out of you (or at a time that is better for you) would you agree that the Newer Testament (read Jesus Christ) gives a fuller revelation of God than the Older Testament? Jonathan From: Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:55 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad No. -- slade --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad
Hi Slade, I realize that your one word answer is most likely a result of busyness. If I can tweak any more out of you (or at a time that is better for you) would you agree that the Newer Testament (read Jesus Christ) gives a fuller revelation of God than the Older Testament? Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:55 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Echad No. -- slade -Original Message- From: Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 23.51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On Echad Would you agree with me that in light of God's fuller self-revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the New Testament, there is very solid evidence upon which to conclude that echad in Deuteronomy, as it relates to the oneness God, and as it is quoted in the New Testament, does in fact reflect and refer to a coming together to form a oneness by way of unity, and that to the contrary it does not refer to an absolute singularity, as even some Christians are wont to insist? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Image of God
Hi Judy. I admit to being disappointed that you appear to not have wrestled with my post. I put a lot of work into that post to help you move from a non-biblical viewpoint to one supported by scripture. Ah well, two points to me for trying! You are correct in that I do not think that ALL the image of God consists of is being human with a positive orientation of life toward God. If I was to give a definition of what it means to be human it would include the image of God in it along with a sentence about being in relation as well as a point made that humans are the only creatures that are addressed in speech by God. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:11 PM To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] The Image of God jt: Jonathan, Please tell me you don't think that all the "image of God" consists of is being human with a positive orientation of life toward God. Is this remaking God in our own image - or is it humanism? David Miller would probably be more qualified to discern. judyt The basis for this is the ‘loss’ of the imago Dei as a positive orientation of life toward God through the Fall, and the renewal of the imago Dei through the whole work of Jesus Christ as the incarnate and thus the original imago. “He is the image of the invisible God,” says Paul, “the firstborn of all creation…” Col. 1:15. ”Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature..." When we talk about the image of God we are speaking of that quality that distinctly identifies us as human, that separates us from the animals. This image that God stamps upon us cannot be thrown away, even through sin. It is who we are. To remove the image of God from us is to remove our humanness which, of course, is impossible. I believe the biblical texts above (the 3 from Genesis and the two from the NT) are sufficient evidence for us to proclaim that the image of God did not disappear from humankind as a result of the Fall. I hope you will concur. Jonathan --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Hi Izzy, The reason I have not replied to you was because of what you said at the end of your first request to me on why my belief in the ‘eternal sonship’ matters. I will quote the ending: How has it made you a better person? (I can’t imagine.) The sarcastic nature of the ‘I can’t imagine part’ is what kept me from replying. You see there is no doctrine that makes us more godly. Your own beliefs have not made you mode godly. God Himself makes us more godly. A clearer understanding of doctrines can help us repent of our false beliefs and move closer to the God that works within us. Faith always seeks understanding. Having correct beliefs aids the relationship as it moves from falsehood to truth. Note beliefs do help people become more moralistic but I don’t think you want to go down that road again J There is a problem with email forums in that most people act like jerks (both of us included). If we had a godly scale for TT none of us would be higher than a 3. Now if we had a godly scale for how we participate outside the forum our godly scale would be much higher. My post was entitled why the eternal sonship matters to me, not why it has made me a better person. If you read my post you would notice that I do not detach the sonship of Christ from His Person, or who God is inherently in His Being. Does having a proper view of the Trinity make me a better father, husband, and friend? I hope so but just like Moses was not aware that his face was shining after spending time on the mountain with God we are not aware of our own godliness aside from when others point it out to us. I can tell you that my wife believes that what I hold to be true about God cements our relationship with each other and our son and allows me to live in grace much more than I used to. I acknowledge that God has a long way to go with me. Thankfully He is patient. Regarding the Roman Catholic church. There is a reason I use the words church catholic instead of catholic church. One is the universal body of believers. It is them that hold to the patristic views of our faith. However, in your attempts to disassociate yourself from the RCC, I would suggest that you have very few beliefs that are not shared by our Roman Catholic brethren. Grab your statement of faith from your church and compare it to the latest catechism of the RCC. You will be surprised at how close they are on the integral beliefs. Orthodoxy is defined by the ancient creeds. The basic ones are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed although there are many others. It is to these creeds that the church catholic has constantly appealed to as orthodoxy. David is correct in asserting that there was much conflict in the creation of these creeds. Conflict follows any who attempt to identify with the God of scripture. Jonathan Jonathan, You continue to ignore my repeated requests to know how/why your belief in the "eternal sonship" matters one whit in living a godly life. Please explain if you are able so that I do not have to conclude that you have logical answer or that you are being evasive, as I have had to do with others on TT.) If you never noticed, Protestants left the RCC a very long time ago. We don't rely on the RCC for our beliefs, as the RCC has a very wicked and non-biblical history in our opinion. Therefore it is NOT the definer of “orthodox”. This is perhaps one reason why we value God's word enough to believe what it says, just as it says it. We have not been taught to allow someone else to (mis)interpret it for us. Please explain the essential doctrines which you believe that we hold in error. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
[TruthTalk] Doctrine of Creation
Hi David, When I was younger there were a few arguments that one used to determine where one stood on the evangelical spectrum. Ten to fifteen years ago it was evolution versus creation, the end-times, and the use of the 'sign' gifts. Nowadays the litmus tests seem to be either abortion or your favourite: homosexuality. (Since the Bible rarely refers to homosexuality [less than 10 references and none by Jesus] I have always wondered why you seem to mention homosexuality in almost every other post of yours? I have even wondered if you yourself struggle with homosexual tendencies. The saying is, "You doth protest too much.") I used to be a literal 6 day young earth creationist. I read a lot on it. When I was at Bible school Ken Ham showed up for some talks. It was all very fascinating and certain. It wasn't until I got a bit older and began to follow up on some of 6 day young earth creationist's claims that I began to realize how much 'bad' science was involved. I then switched camps to the intelligent design camp. I am not sure where you would place me now. I will give a few comments on what I think is important when discussing creation. Some of my thoughts here are from Colin Gunton's 'The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Theology' (pg 3-10). I believe that the book of Genesis is meant to be interpreted theologically and not scientifically. I believe that very important theological concepts are set up in Genesis (God's sovereignty, rejections of deism, pantheism, panentheism, relations including marriage and the list goes on and on. I am sure you would agree with me that Genesis is a very rich book). I believe that it illustrates that a transcendent 'wholly other' God created a contingent cosmos. I believe that God was active in creating the cosmos while allowing the cosmos to contribute to the process. For example, look at Genesis 1:24 and 25. Verse 24 is God saying 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures. Juxtapose this with verse 25 which states that 'God made the beasts...'. Here we see that God, being sovereign, calls creation into being but at the same time allows for the earth to be part of the process. This is the beginning of a contingent world: one which finds its ground in God and is dependent upon Him. This is also the beginning of science: that which allows us to study and understand the basic structures and components of creation. And of course it is also the beginning of theological science: God giving us the tools and furniture to begin to turn our minds (repentance) towards Himself. Thankfully, God is patient in this regard. In the use of 7 days I believe that the author was illustrating God's patience in this cooperation between Him and the cosmos. I believe this patience continues to this day. Karl Barth writes, "God's patience [is] his will ... to allow one another ... space and time for the development of its own existence, thus conceding to its existence a reality side by side with His own " Much more could be said about Genesis 1-3. I am very conscious of a need to develop a doctrine of creation that is aligned with who God has revealed Himself to be. I note that my thought as it presently stands is deficient in this aspect (and yes, in many others too!). What needs to be worked out for me is the inclusion of the Spirit and Son in creation. There are many other scriptures that speak of creation that I need to be looking at. Until then I hope these basic thoughts suffice. Jonathan Jonathan wrote: > For the record there is nothing in Lance's post > that even comes close to suggesting evolutionary > theory. It was just a little reading between the lines, and Lance has acknowledged now that he is an evolutionist, I guess. He wasn't real clear about it, but I think it is perhaps safe to assume that he is. What about you, Jonathan? Do you believe in the Genesis creation account or are you an evolutionist? Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
The term Father as applied to God that we are referring to is the classical definition of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Spirit. This is not the Father you are referring to. I believe you are thinking that God must have created offspring to be a Father. Jesus Christ and the Spirit were not created; they are eternally begotten. That Father is eternally the Father of the Son. No one is arguing that creation always existed. That is another heresy that Athanasius put dealt with. Once again, when we speak of the Triune God we are speaking of one God who has revealed Himself in three Persons. He is who He is eternally. The fatherhood you are referencing below has nothing to do with who God is; rather, you are talking about a role. God is who He is before the creation of the cosmos. I am continually astounded that those who have been termed 'liberals' on this forum are the only ones who hold to orthodox Christianity, that which the church catholic has decreed for millennia. The more we discuss the more we see how the 'non-liberals' spurn the faith of apostles. From a doctrinal standpoint you guys are really out there. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:03 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me David Miller wrote: >> The father became the father when Elohim >> first created life, such as an angel. Lance wrote: > There's that 'became' again. The term "father" denotes a function of being a parent over offspring. Are you going to try to argue that the creation always existed? If the creation did not always exist, then there was some point in time when the term "father" applied to Yahweh. If there was a point in time when the term first applied, then there was a point in time when the term did not apply. Therefore, Yahweh became a father at some point in time. Why do you have a problem with this word "became"? Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Jonathan writes: The Trinity is the relationship as one of the Father, Son and Spirit eternally. It is who God is. jt: God calls Himself by many titles in scripture, Elohim is only one of them. JBH: I would suggest moving away from titles to who God is inherently in His own Being. Titles are important but only as one understands the Person behind the title. For example, I work as a business analyst. My title is Supervisor of Application Support. Does this describe who I am inherently in my being? No, it describes a role that I play. It is the same thing with God. Begin with who He has declared Himself to be: Father, Son and Spirit. Then move onto titles that are grounded in His Being. To deny the eternal sonship of the Son is to deny the Trinity existing eternally. It means there is no Father, and no Son prior to the incarnation with no Spirit mediating between them both. jt: It doesn't mean that at all Jonathan and where would one get the idea that the Holy Spirit mediates between Father and Son? Mediation is only necessary where there is a breach. The Godhead is One. Remember Tertullian didn't come up with this trinity idea until the 3rd century and the "eternal Sonship" thing began with Athanasius at Nicaea in the 4th Century so I guess the apostles were without this Trinity, Father, Son .. revelation though they turned the whole world upside down by their teaching. From what I can gather by the time these theologians took the reins things had degenerated so far into politics and infighting that I personally would not receive their words on the same level as scripture and when there is a conflict [which there is constinually I choose to stick with God's Word rather than the words of men] . JBH: You are understanding mediation in a very limited form. I am using it to describe the One who comes alongside, the ‘in’ the Spirit. The early Church Fathers didn’t come up with the Trinity idea. It was forced upon them as they read the scriptures. It was God revealing Himself to them in order that they may apprehend Him more fully. It became the identity of the Church catholic. It is the one aspect of the Christian faith that separates it from all others. Lots of faith’s have God becoming man and dying (some even rising again!). Only Christianity has the Trinity. I would suggest that you begin to read more than one source on the Church Fathers. To speak of it in a different fashion than Father, Son and Spirit is to speak of a different Trinity, one not associated with historic, orthodox Christianity. jt: When Historic, orthodox Christianity changes or contradicts the clear teaching of God's Word it becomes sinking sand. The Godhead described in scripture is not always Father, Son, and Spirit. Sometimes it is Father, Logos, and Spirit or Father, Word, and Spirit. JBH: The historic orthodox view of the Trinity is Father, Son and Spirit. Now just because you lump three words together (whether they be Father, Word, Spirit or Mother, Logos, Sophia etc.) does not make it the orthodox view of the Trinity. It does make it a conflicting view. The Godhead affirmed by the Church catholic is Father, Son and Spirit. This is fact. You may disagree with it but it is fact nonetheless. You are outside of what the Church as proclaimed as the deposit of faith from the apostles. What would be opinion would be any viewpoint that disagrees with the historic orthodox view of the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity, and you have given no evidence that you do, then you would affirm the eternal sonship of Christ. Jonathan jt: My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ Jonathan and the words I follow are His. His sheep hear His Voice and another voice they do not follow. I don't hear his voice through Tertullian or through Athanasius. They were from another generation entirely and they will stand or fall before the Lord. JBH: Your faith may be in the Lord Jesus Christ but it appears that you really don’t know who He is as God. You have never read Tertullian of Athanasius to any degree that would allow you to say that you don’t hear the Shepherd’s voice through them. All you have read is secondary source material. Try Athanasius’ ‘On the Incarnation’. Small book introduced with a wonderful essay by C.S. Lewis. Your entire Christian faith is based upon what these godly men hammered out in the first few centuries. There is nothing new under the sun. Please give me the phone number to the church you attend. I would like to get a copy of their statement of faith. If they have a website that would make it easier but I don’t mind calling them. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.81
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Hi David, You are correct in recognizing that I have illustrated a major difference in our hermeneutic. I begin with Christ, you begin with syntax. I have an overarching guide to interpretation (it must be consistent with who God is as He reveals Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ). You have texts to compare one with another. Whoever makes the best argument wins. The message of Christ is detached from the Person of Christ. God did not first give us the law. God first gave His Son who was slain before the foundation of the world. According to the first chapter of Ephesians it was always His plan. God demonstrated His grace prior to the law. Read the first few verses of Exodus 20. God first talks about who He is, the One who delivers. Then He gives the law. Grace (fully manifested in the Person of Christ) always comes before the law. Even creation began with Christ in and through Whom all things were made. Romans also begins with Christ. Read the first five verses. They set up the entire letter, the prism of all that Paul says in the following 16 chapters. Repentance and faith are not so easily divided as repentance is a result of faith, or an exercise of faith. I think you see repentance as a work that is a condition for faith. Thankfully, I believe that God sees repentance as a response to faith. I used to hold the exact same hermeneutic as you David. Begin with the problem and move to the cure. God has been gracious in helping me see that I am to fix my eyes on Christ, the hope of glory. It is when we take our eyes off Christ and create doctrines that are detached from Him that we get into trouble. It is a dualistic way of thought to detach God's message from His Person. Lance gave you a quote on Friday by James Houston: "What we realize is that behind this lies the whole temptation of the mind to control. But the nature of theology is that it should be receptive rather than controlling, open rather than grasping; a matter of delight rather than a matter of mastery. Grasping, controlling, and mastery are faster and seem surer. They are the shortcut to truth, but they produce a reduced vision of the truth. So always be suspicious of theological success." This is an amazing quote as it highlights our desire to control even when it comes to our theology. To step out and have Christ dictate what our theology will be, to submit our thoughts to Him, to allow Him to use scripture to point us to the truth held in Him is a very humbling experience. It is Jesus that masters us, not us mastering Him. It is far easier to prooftext, compare one scripture with another, and use the Bible to promote our desire for control. I think this happens constantly and is displayed everyday (by myself as well) on this forum. My hermeneutic illustrates a desire to set aside the scriptural logjams and to allow God to continue the work He has for us. It is simple to prove anything with the Bible. What is difficult is to demonstrate that one's proof comes from the heart of God. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:04 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me Jonathan wrote: > Starting with sin and moving towards Christ > is never the answer. Starting with Christ and > defining sin in the light of who He is, is the answer. I think you are hitting on a major difference in which we approach humanity and his relationship to Christ. I certainly understood your maze analogy, but I'm not convinced that it applies to this situation. Here is why. God himself first gave us the law. I see that as starting with the sin problem. Later he revealed Christ. Even when Christ came, he first sent a forerunner, someone who pointed out sin and called for repentance. Jesus too, in his message, started with "repent" and then moved toward discussing the kingdom of God. Even Paul in his letter to the Romans, begins with the sin problem in Romans 7 and moves on to discussing life in the Spirit in Romans 8. Your comment that I quoted above is highly reminiscent of discussions we had about Mormonism on this list. Their doctrine places repentance after faith, whereas I believe the Scriptures teach us repentance and then faith. I believe they also follow this more holistic approach that you have outlined here overall. Now please don't misunderstand me to be saying that because your belief is like Mormonism it is false. That is NOT my intention. Mormons believe many things that are absolutely 100% accurate, such as the teaching that Jesus Christ died for our sins. All I'm trying to say is that we have had some discussions about this in the past on this list, before you arrived here, and I think most of us, perhaps all except Dave Hansen, came to the conclusion that this was not the right approach. Have you ever conside
RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Terry, The Trinity is the relationship as one of the Father, Son and Spirit eternally. It is who God is. To deny the eternal sonship of the Son is to deny the Trinity existing eternally. It means there is no Father, and no Son prior to the incarnation with no Spirit mediating between them both. To speak of it in a different fashion than Father, Son and Spirit is to speak of a different Trinity, one not associated with historic, orthodox Christianity. What would be opinion would be any viewpoint that disagrees with the historic orthodox view of the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity, and you have given no evidence that you do, then you would affirm the eternal sonship of Christ. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 7:36 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me Jonathan Hughes wrote: Judy, I believe that there is a barometer built into Christianity that helps us to identify heresy. I believe that that barometer is the Trinity. When people deny the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ they are denying the Trinity. I deny the eternal sonship and I believe in the Trinity. Maybe you should specify that this is just an opinion? Terry --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth
Hi Judy, Yes the word ‘made’ is past tense but it is applied to a current situation for why one should not shed another person’s blood. The author uses it to explain why murder is not right. There is no logical reason for the author to refer to the image of God if it was no longer present. This is a clear inference that the image of God continued in humanity after the Fall. And of course, how could it not? What God gives to us is not for us to let go of. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:12 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth jt: Not sure what the point you are wanting to make is John.. but I'd like to remind you that the adverb here is past tense and a lot of water has gone under the bridge leading up to Genesis 9:6. from Genesis 1:26 when God made A&E in His image and after His likeness. Remember also that God is a Spirit [John 4:24] and this is why we need to be Born of the Spirit before we are able to enter the Kingdom of God. By Genesis 6 following Adam's fall things had really deteriorated and God's patience had worn thin by Genesis 6:3 where he states "My Spirit shall not always strive with man for that he also is flesh, yet his days shall be 120yrs." (Genesis 6:3) - Does this sound like "God's image in man?" On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:41:47 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Genesis 9:6 (6) Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. A great scripture to the point I am trying to make. John --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
[TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Judy, When I was younger I used to like completing mazes. It wasn't long before, either through someone telling me or through dumb luck, that I figured out that it was wiser to solve a tough maze by beginning with the end and working one's way back to the start. It provided a different perspective by starting where one must end up in order to end up where one started. Theology often provides this opportunity. Too often I believe we start with the problem and work our way to the cure. This process means that we go on to define the cure by the problem. Evangelicals are most guilty of this when discussing sin. Starting with sin and moving towards Christ is never the answer. Starting with Christ and defining sin in the light of who He is, is the answer. I would like to apply this concept (Using the cure to define the problem) to the discussion of the eternal sonship of Christ. I believe that there is a barometer built into Christianity that helps us to identify heresy. I believe that that barometer is the Trinity. When people deny the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ they are denying the Trinity. I hold that the Trinity is the ground and grammar of our faith. In other words we start from who God has communicated Himself to be in His divine self-revelation and speak of all things through that prism. I believe along with the Nicene Fathers that God has communicated Himself as being Triune (Father, Son and Spirit). There has been some discussion about the phrase 'Son of God' as being bestowed upon Jesus as a title. While this is true we need to be careful with confusing the title 'Son of God' with who Jesus Christ is - The Son of God. One is a title, the other who Jesus is inherently in His being. What I give great umbrage to is when people deny not a title of Christ but who He was and is today in His being. I hold that God is Father, Son and Spirit and has been for all eternity. I hold that the Son and Spirit are eternally generated from the Father. The reason I, and orthodoxy, disagree with you most Judy is because you are denying who God is and how He has revealed Himself to be. You are saying that God is not Triune (Father, Son and Spirit). This takes you outside of Christianity and aligns you with the Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Islam. We have given a number of scriptural references to God being eternally as He is described above (Father, Son and Spirit) especially focusing on the passages in John where the Father and Son speak of their relationship. You also have supplied a few references that taken on their own could point towards Jesus becoming the Son of God only once He was incarnated. If you take these scriptures (yours and ours) and throw them into a pot you get a scriptural logjam. What needs to be done is to start with the cure: Jesus Christ. Work out who He is in light of the Triune revelation. Then focus on your problems with eternal sonship. You will find that they have disappeared and you will now be able to exegete scripture in a way that brings glory to our Father and does justice to His self-revelation in Jesus. Scripture can never be interpreted apart from the Person and Being of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God to us, not scripture. We need to take our scripture and align it underneath God. To do otherwise is to be left with a disintegrating Bible, one where we just take a text and compare it to another text depending on what opinion we are attempting to prove at the time. All of this is done apart from Jesus Christ. We need to begin with the cure and then move onto our problems in interpreting the Bible. My hope is that you will allow God through scripture and through His revelation in Christ to begin to see God for who He is: Father, Son and Spirit. I fear that if you do not you will continue to slide down the slippery slope of heresy. It tends to snowball as one goes along. Here is the progression that you are already making. First, you deny the eternal sonship of Christ. Secondly, you suggest that subordination exists in the Godhead. (David Miller also does this but I believe David’s motives for accepting subordination are different then your own. I believe David’s are him reading his view of relationships, especially between a man and a wife [headship] and applying them back onto God in His inherent Being). Third, you begin to relate and promote Arian arguments. The questions Arius asked are important questions. It is also important that one understand why the Christian Church chose to follow Athanasius instead of Arius. Please keep reading on this, preferably from a number of different sources. If you want any suggestions please send me a private email. Fourth, you begin to concentrate not on the Triune God but a modalistic God who works out His plan in different modes during different time spans. The final step (one I do not believe you have made yet) is to disengage Jesus Christ from God altogether.
RE: [TruthTalk] Creation v. Evolution
A complete misunderstanding Terry or else a nice sarcastic shot at Lance. I was hoping that the new year would bring less sarcasm from you and more beneficial participation. Please don't disappoint me. We use the Bible today as a source for truth because of the Word who lives eternally. It is not dated because through the words of scripture we meet the living Christ, God Himself! There is nothing dated about Jesus. There is much that is dated by David's rationalist outlook. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 6:58 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creation v. Evolution Lance Muir wrote: >'Dubious value' indeed! Other than for comic relief, no one has referenced >these 'scholars' for thirty years. David, the more I hear from you the more >out of touch I believe you to be.You may wish to turn your library over to >an antiquarian book society then, start again. Do you know what Popper and >Ptolomey (Teillard, Morris, Whitcombe et al) have in common? Their >'datedness'. > > Now I am beginning to understand. You do not use the Bible as a source for truth because it is outdated and the writers had no credentials. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Humankind in the Image of God
Hi Judy, I would like to think that this email will solve the ‘image of God for all of humankind’ discussion once and for all. I am being naïve if I think this. I would ask that you search the scriptures and allow some credence for my argument below. I used to think that having orthodoxy on my side would be a boon but with you it doesn’t seem to matter much at all. What follows is taken from On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology by Ray Anderson (pg. 215-216). Anderson’s book is a discussion of what it means to be human. The image of God (imago Dei) is an important concept to understand when attempting to define what it means to be human. “The doctrine of the imago Dei is explicitly stated in the Old Testament in three texts: Genesis 1:26f, 5:1, 9:6. To these texts, we might add references in the apocrypha: Wisdom ii.23 and Ecclesiasticus xvii.3. In all of these passages, a special quality of life is attributed to the human creature as against the nonhuman, described either as being created in the image of God (tselem) or after the likeness of God (demuth) – or both, as in Genesis 1:26. The imago is also mentioned in the New Testament in a similar sense in two passages: 1 Corinthians 11:7 and James 3:9. The ‘man’ representing the human person, whether believe or not, is a bearer of the ‘image and glory of God” (I Cor. 11:7) and for that reason should never be ‘cursed’ (James 3:9). Paul, in his message to the Athenians, even summons the Gentiles as witnesses to this relation with God which characterizes all human beings – ‘in him we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28). In addition to these explicit references to the human person created in the image of God, there are other important New Testament references which add significantly to the concept of the imago. Among them are the following: Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10. In an even more general sense, one might say that Christ reflects this imago in his own divine sonship, which becomes the basis for becoming ‘children of God’ and being ‘like him’ (1 John 3:2). In the New Testament, the imago Dei as the formative concept of the Old Testament for an understanding of human being is ‘torn out’ of its structural or morphological rigidity and molded to a more dynamic understanding of the imago as being-in-the-Word-of-God (see Brunner’s Man in Revolt, pg. 501). The basis for this is the ‘loss’ of the imago Dei as a positive orientation of life toward God through the Fall, and the renewal of the imago Dei through the whole work of Jesus Christ as the incarnate and thus the original imago. “He is the image of the invisible God,” says Paul, “the firstborn of all creation…” (Col. 1:15).” When we talk about the image of God we are speaking of that quality that distinctly identifies us as human, that separates us from the animals. This image that God stamps upon us cannot be thrown away, even through sin. It is who we are. To remove the image of God from us is to remove our humanness which, of course, is impossible. I believe the biblical texts above (the 3 from Genesis and the two from the NT) are sufficient evidence for us to proclaim that the image of God did not disappear from humankind as a result of the Fall. I hope you will concur. Jonathan --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth
For the record there is nothing in Lance's post that even comes close to suggesting evolutionary theory. What Lance is referring to is a point made by Duns Scotus (1266-1308) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus) who suggested that the incarnation would still have occurred even if sin had not entered the equation. In other words there is much more to Jesus Christ than just the taking care of sin. On the whole, we (Christians) have always moved from the problem (sin) to the cure (Christ), instead of the cure (Christ) to the problem (sin). It is because of this that we think of Christ as the sin killer instead of a more holistic approach to who He is. More on this in an upcoming post. Scotus was an interesting fellow. He is where we get the term 'dunce' from. He was a strong proponent of the Immaculate Conception, the Roman Catholic version of Judy's doctrine of Christ (not having a sinful nature). They couldn't deal with it scripturally so they created a doctrine that ensured that Mary didn't have a sinful nature and therefore couldn't pass it on to Jesus. Brilliant way around the text! Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 3:37 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth Lance wrote: > I believe that even had that (unnamed) thingy > never occured the Eternal Son would still have > Incarnated. This sounds like evolutionary theory is your working paradigm. Is this true? Do you believe in evolution (perhaps theistic evolution) as the proper model for our origins? Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Tsunami Disaster Relief
I used www.amazon.com. It was extremely simple but I already had an account set up there. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 9:02 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Tsunami Disaster Relief Has anyone decided what is the best venue for sending a donation to the Tsunami Disaster? I prefer online. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth
David: >Therefore, creeds are immature philosophical steps on the path to truth. >They do not represent the actual apprehension of truth, but only the hopeful >expectation of what might be found once that truth is fully apprehended. We >should not fear deviating from creeds. > > DAVEH: Isn't the Nicene Creed the glue that holds Protestantism together? Once one departs that path, do they not achieve cult status? Jonathan: Yes DaveH. You are correct. Hence the cultic beliefs of some on this forum. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Enter Subject Here
The next person who writes a post with the subject title ‘Judy’s Plagiarism’ will be subject to my wrath. The topic was concluded days ago. Please remember that the contents of one’s post should coordinate with the content of the subject line. And I am back. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:20 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy's Plagiarism We must each discern the 'will not' or the 'can not' of one another. Having done so it's probably best to 'move on'. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 29, 2004 19:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy's Plagiarism In a message dated 12/29/2004 3:50:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, Knpraise writes: In a message dated 12/29/2004 2:49:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I said what I said. You have the freedom on TT to accuse me of deceit. I do not have the freedom to counter. You win. Move on and leave me out. John jt: I didn't write the message below to "accuse" you of anything John. I am asking you if you see how Izzy's words were twisted and how this whole thing took on a life of it's own? Do you see it? Are you still talking about what happened last week? Izzy wants to move and so do I. What was done was done -- whether intentional or not -- I do not know. I do know that it was preventable. John --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship of Christ
Question: What is the nature of Christ’s sonship? Answer: Concerning the eternal Sonship of Christ, Ryrie has this to say: I agree with Buswell (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, pp. 105-12) that generation is not an exegetically based doctrine. The concept it tries to convey, however, is not unscriptural, and certainly the doctrine of sonship is scriptural. The phrase “eternal generation” is simply an attempt to describe the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity and, by using the word “eternal,” protect it from any idea of inequality or temporality. But whether or not one chooses to use the idea of eternal generation, the personal and eternal and coequal relation of the Father and Son must be affirmed. Least of all should eternal generation be based on Psalm 2:7 (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media). Psalm 2:7 reads, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.” The Psalmist’s reference to “My Son” referred to the legitimate Davidic king (2 Sam. 7:14) who one day would reign in the person of Messiah, who, of course, is the Lord Jesus. The words “Today I have begotten You” speak of the day of coronation or the anointing of the King to be fulfilled in the Millennium. But in the New Testament, this is related to Christ’s resurrection (Acts 13:33-34; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). Many theologians or Bible students see Acts 13:33 to refer to Christ’s exaltation via the resurrection because it clearly validated Jesus’ claims and marked Him out as the Son of God as Paul demonstrates in Romans 1:4. Becoming flesh made Jesus Mary’s son, but not God’s. This would suggest He had not been the Son of God and true deity prior to birth. Christ’s title as Son of God is a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. Also from Ryrie’s Theology is the following: Son of God. Our Lord used this designation of Himself (though rarely, John 10:36), and He acknowledged its truthfulness when it was used by others of Him (Matt. 26:63-64). What does it mean? Though the phrase “son of” can mean “offspring of,” it also carries the meaning “of the order of.” Thus in the Old Testament “sons of the prophets” meant of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and “sons of the singers” meant of the order of the singers (Neh. 12:28). The designation “Son of God” when used of our Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and clear claim to full Deity. “In Jewish usage the term Son of . . . did not generally imply any subordination, but rather equality and identity of nature. Thus Bar Kokba, who led the Jewish revolt 135-132 B.C. in the reign of Hadrian, was called by a name which means ‘Son of the Star.’ It was supposed that he took this name to identify himself as the very Star predicted in Numbers 24:17. The name ‘Son of Encouragement’ (Acts 4:36) doubtless means, ‘The Encourager.’ ‘Sons of Thunder’ (Mark 3:17) probably means ‘Thunderous Men.’ ‘Son of man,’ especially as applied to Christ in Daniel 7:13 and constantly in the New Testament, essentially means ‘The Representative Man.’ Thus for Christ to say, ‘I am the Son of God’ (John 10:36) was understood by His contemporaries as identifying Himself as God, equal with the Father, in an unqualified sense” (J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962], 1:105). There are many other ways and passages to support the deity of Christ, but the point here is that this title clearly does that. It does not and cannot, as it is used in the Bible, refer to Him as a son by the incarnation. The incarnation did not make Him Son of God, it was the means that the Son of God became man that He might die for our sin. http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=57&qa_id=170 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Da
RE: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship of Christ
The Divine Processions and the Eternal Sonship of Christ with a refutation of Mormon errors on this subject Introduction This essay looks at the Catholic Doctrines of the Divine Processions and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, and refutes some Mormon errors in this regard. The First section is an extract from "The Creed Explained" by Rev. Arthur Devine (Passionist), p. 114-118), 1892) on the subject of the Divine Processions. This section may be found to be a bit technical, but is worth the effort. Next some objections will be considered, specifically we shall refute a nuber of objections to the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, a doctrine which is an essential component of the Doctrine of the Divine Processions. PART I: The Divine Processions To explain how Christ is the Son of God, involves the question of the Divine Processians and Relations. By Procession, we mean the coming forth or emanation of one thing from another. Procession is two-fold (a) ad intra or immanens, that, whose term remains in the principle from which it proceeds, and does not go beyond it; (b) ad extra or transient, which is that, whose term or effect goes outside the principle from which it proceeds; thus our words, and the productions of nature, are examples of procession ad extra. It is either perfect or imperfect. Perfect, when the term or that which proceeds subsists, and is the same as the subject from which it proceeds. Imperfect, when the term or effect either dees not subsist, as in the example of the thoughts of the mind, er is not the same as its principle or fountain head, such as in created things; a son is not the same individual nature as his father. In every procession we have three things to consider, namely, the action, the principle, and the term. The principle is that from which the term proceeds. The action is the very act of the principle which produces the term, it is the way to the term, and the term or result is that which is produced. That there are Processions in God no one has denied, except those who have denied the Mystery af the Holy Trinity. It is also clear from the Sacred Scriptures, and from the definitions and declarations of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. The reason for this arises from the fact, that there are three Persons in God, really distinct in one and the same divine nature. And this cannot be unless there be Processions. There cannot be three Persons unless there be same opposition or difference between them by which one can be distinguished from another. But, in the divine Persons there can be no opposition, except what is called relative opposition, and the relations are founded on the divine Processions, and therefore there must be Processions in God. According to Scripture, and the Creeds of faith, there are two Processions (ad intra) in God. There are only three Personsï the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding. Therefore, there are two and only two Processions, namely, the Procession of the Son from the Father, and of .the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. The reason of this is, because we have to admit Procession in God according to His internal actions, or the actions that remain in Himself, and these are two and two only: the act of the intellect, and the act of the will, virtually distinct from one another. Now we have to consider the question of the Sonship; that is, that the Procession of the Son is called generation and not the Procession of the Holy Ghost. As we have explained, there are in God two Processions: the Procession of the Son from the intellect; and of the Holy Ghost from the Will. In regard to these, some things are of faith; and these I shall state before introducing those on which the opinions of theologians differ. It is of faith that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Son and the only begotten Son of God; and, therefore, it is of faith that the Procession of the Son is a generation, but the Procession of the Holy Ghost is not a generation. Hence, it followe that the Son proceeds from the Father by generation; the Holy Spirit does not proceed by generation, but by simple procession from the Father and the Son. This doctrine is proved from Scripture, for the reason that, in Holy Scripture, the Second Person is called the Son, and said to be begotten, and the only begotten, whilst the Holy Ghost is never called Son, and never said to have been begotten, but simply proceeding, as is expressed in the Athanasian Creed: The Son is from the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost from the Father and Ihe Son, not made, nor created, but proceeding.ï In further elucidation of this doctrine, it is necessary to understand what is meant by generation. What is meant by Generation Generation is two-fold, the generation of animate and inanimate thinge. The generation of inanimate, or not living things, is the change effected by bringin
RE: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship of Christ
Taken from http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/sonship.html WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? For two thousand years, Christians have always believed that Jesus is the Eternal Son of God. This truth is enshrined in the Nicene Creed: "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father". This is the faith of our Fathers, the true Christian Faith. Our Eastern brethren and many of our separated Protestant brethren share this belief with us. However, a few Evangelicals today deny this great truth. They still believe in the Trinity, but try to argue that the Eternal Word, the Second Person of the Godhead, was not always the "Son" of the First Person. Some say that Jesus only became the Son of God at the Incarnation, at the same time Mary became His Mother. Others go so far as to claim that Jesus did not become the Son of God until His Resurrection! These Evangelicals may even call the belief that Jesus is eternally begotten a "heresy"! Imagine calling an ancient Christian teaching contained in the Nicene Creed "heresy"! This article will show that Jesus' eternal Sonship is not only orthodox doctrine but completely Biblical (as is all Christian orthodoxy, of course!). First it will refute the more extreme claim that Jesus only became the Son of God at His Resurrection. Then it will show from the Bible that His Divine Sonship extends even into Eternity. A Doctrine Based on One Verse! Those who think that Jesus did not become God's Son until He rose from the dead base this belief on a single verse of Scripture: Acts 13:33. This verse reads "This (God) has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.'" They interpret this passage to mean that God begets Jesus on the day of the Resurrection, not before. This is a gross misinterpretation of this passage. Saint Peter is only saying that Jesus is the Son of God spoken of in Psalm 2:7, and that God has raised His Son from the dead. The "day" spoken of here is not the day of His Resurrection, but the Day of Eternity. To God, Eternity is like an endless Day, with no night, no passage of time. Jesus is begotten of God in the everlasting "Today" in which God eternally lives: "Today, in Eternity, I have eternally begotten you". Was Jesus the Son of God before His Resurrection? The rest of the Bible clearly and definitively teaches that Jesus was the Son of God before His Resurrection. All throughout His earthly life, Jesus keeps calling God His "Father", and Himself God's "Son". What could possibly be clearer than that? It is astounding that some Evangelicals have missed it! Here are some examples: After Our Lady and St. Joseph found the boy Jesus in the temple, He asked them "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luke 2:49). At the age of twelve, Jesus calls God His Father (more than two decades before His Resurrection!). If God is His Father, then Jesus is God's Son! At Jesus' Baptism, God the Father proclaims "This is my beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Not "This will be my beloved Son after His death and resurrection", but "This is my beloved Son". In John 1:34; Saint John the Baptizer testifies that Jesus "is the Son of God" (again, not "will be", but is now!) In Matthew 11:25-27, Jesus calls God His Father and Himself God's Son during His ministry, and long before the Resurrection: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (vs 27) In Matthew 14:33, His disciples worship Him, saying "Truly, you are the Son of God". Were they wrong? Not at all! In Matthew 16:16, Saint Peter proclaims "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Jesus commends him, saying that His "Father in Heaven" revealed this to the apostle. Peter calls Jesus the Son of God, Jesus calls God His Father; what could possibly be clearer? In Matthew 17:5, The Father again calls Jesus His "beloved Son" at the Transfiguration. Jesus has still not died or risen yet! In John 10:36; Jesus says "I am the Son of God". Not "I will become the Son of God", but "I am the Son of God". Jesus knows Who He is; He cannot lie or make a mistake! In John 11:27, Martha says to Him "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world". Jesus does not correct her; she has spoken the truth. In John 17:1, Jesus prays "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee". He is not asking the Father to make Him His Son, but to glorify the One Who is already His Son. And no
[TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship of Christ
More scriptural evidence for the heresy rampant on this forum. Taken from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/sonship.htm The Eternal Sonship of Christ 1)The Doctrine of Eternal Sonship The doctrine of eternal Sonship declares that the Second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. His Sonship had no beginning. There was never a time when He was not the Son of God. There has always been a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead. Sonship is not merely a title or role or function that Christ assumed at some point in history, but it involves the essential identity of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is and has always been the true, proper, actual Son of God. 2)The Denial of Eternal Sonship Those who deny eternal Sonship teach that Christ became the Son at some point in history—at His incarnation, at His baptism, at His resurrection or at His exaltation. Most who deny eternal Sonship say that He became the Son at His birth (at the incarnation), and that prior to Bethlehem He was not the Son of God. They do not deny His deity or His eternality, but they deny His eternal Sonship. Some teach that the term “Son of God” means “subservient to God, less than God, inferior to God.” They believe that Christ's Sonship is external, extrinsic, and extraneous to the real, true, proper, and essential essence of who Jesus Christ really is. Thus they teach that Sonship was merely a role or a title or a function that Christ assumed at the incarnation. They also teach that the Father became the Father at the time of the incarnation. Those who teach this view would include Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Jimmy Swaggart, Finis J. Dake (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible), Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults). Popular Bible teacher John MacArthur, Jr. for many years denied the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, but he has changed his position and now embraces this doctrine. 3)The Defense of Eternal Sonship (Biblical Evidence Showing That Christ Was the Son of God Even Prior to Bethlehem): a)The Bible clearly teaches that it was “the Son” who created all things, thus strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation (Col. 1:13,16; Heb. 1:2). b)The Bible teaches that the Son has eternally existed in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 translated literally from the Greek says this: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, THE ONE EVER BEING (existing) IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, He hath declared Him.” c)The many passages which speak of the Father SENDING the Son all imply that Christ existed as the Son prior to His mission (1 John 4:10,14; John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; etc.). d)The parable of the vineyard owner (Mark 12:1-12) points to Christ as being the Son prior to His coming into the world. In the parable, the son of the vineyard owner was the son long before he was sent on his mission. e)God gave His Son (John 3:16), implying that Christ was God's Son before He was given. God the Father did not give One who would become His Son, but He gave One who already was His Son. f) Christ had a relationship to the Father prior to the incarnation. John 16:28 teaches that Christ came forth from the Father, strongly implying that there was a Father/Son relationship before He came into this world. John 17:5,24 also indicates that there was a Father/Son relationship in the Godhead even before the creation of the world. g)The One who existed as the Son of God became the Son of David at the time of the incarnation (Rom. 1:3-4). The incarnation is when God became a man, it is not when God became the Son. He was God's Son from all eternity. h)Even in the Old Testament period we find evidence that God indeed had a Son, such as Proverbs 30:4 and Psalm 2:7-12 (compare also Daniel 3:25; Isaiah 9:6). i) Melchisedec was a type of the Son of God because He was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3). As to His humanity Christ did have a mother, a genealogy, beginning of days, an end of His life (He died!), etc. His divine Sonship, however, has nothing to do with human parents, human lineage, human birth, or time measurements. It is an eternal Sonship. 4) The Meaning of the Term “Son of God.” The important significance of this word is basically threefold: a)A son is a separate person from his father (see the clear distinction between the Father and Son as seen in John 5:19-22 and John 6:38-39). b)A son is the heir, not the servant, of his father. In contrast to his father’s servants, a son is his father's heir (see Matthew 21:33-39; Luke 15:11-32; Gal. 4:7; Heb. 3:5-6) In Hebrews 1:2-14 Christ is set forth as Son and Heir, whereas the angels are called servants (ministers). Thus subservience to one’s father
RE: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection
David, The other day you mentioned that you had read NT Wright on Romans. It is my opinion that you have deceived the list by implying that you have actually done this. I do not believe you had even heard of NT Wright until John, Lance, Bill and I brought him up. Was it a quote of 100 words or so that you found in an online review that helps you assert that you have read NT Wright on Romans? You could have read the latest edition of the Interpreters Commentary (2001) that Wright did on Romans but it is a rather expensive book/set and I doubt you have it. You could have read Tom Wright's 'Romans for Everyone' but that was just published a few weeks ago so I doubt you have that one. 'Romans in a Week' is audio only and I doubt you have that. Romans is dealt with in 'Climax of the Covenant' but I doubt you read that either. What exactly was it that caused you to tell the forum that you had read (and therefore understood enough to say that you did not agree with) NT Wright on Romans? Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:53 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection Lance wrote: > Excepting David Miller who, if I read him aright, > claims sinless perfection (you do don't you David? > Correct me on this if I've misread you.) I do not claim "sinless perfection" nor do I teach it. However, I do teach that the Lord always provides a way of victory over temptation for us, and that we can walk in holiness and not continue to sin. The person who continues to sin is following the Devil, because he is the father of sin, and the person who walks in righteousness is following Christ. Lance wrote: > I'm going to go out on a very short limb while > suggesting that every participant on TT, past > and present, has done, does and, will do these > things.Exceptions? Hands please! Yes, Lance, my hand is up as an exception. I do not presently nor do I expect in the future to engage in hypocrisy, deceit, and dishonesty. Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 -- "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] Judy's Plagiarism
To all TruthTalk Members, Please note that as advised to David Miller a few minutes ago I will not be posting on TruthTalk until he stops his backdoor shenanigans. I believe he has abused his authority by directly going against his appointed moderator. He has fostered continued discord by mishandling both John Smithson and Judy Taylor. John was completely in the right, Judy completely in the wrong. David has taken the opposite tack and thus the forum is now in shambles. I hope this is all worked out and that Christ will again have a place on this forum. Jonathan Hughes --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Judy's Plagiarism
Judy says: JT: Jonathan, what you are trying to insert yourself into here really is not your business. If you can not be part of the answer, why make yourself part of the problem? I know this is a public list but your input on this thread tonight just stokes the fire and feeds discord. Best to stick with your theology. Judy says: What I have learned through all of this though is how little love there is among those who profess godliness. So many seem to want to get in and lay on another 'stripe' - accusation and condemnation reign. Is it any wonder people lack vulnerability and openness in Church settings? - they would be eaten alive. Where is the love that covers the multitude of sin? judyt Jonathan responds: I believe this is very much my business. Your practice of hypocrisy has been aimed at me many times in the last year. Many posts with your long list of put-downs towards Godly men I respect and admire, your rants against theologians and even theology itself have been during conversations with yours truly. This is very much a ‘me’ issue. I have reproved you on this very issue what, half a dozen times in the last year? And as a case in point that 1) you give out just as much as you take, and 2) lack the love you wish others had please see your post above. Your ‘best to stick with your theology’ has accusation and condemnation all over it. Where is the love Judy? This is you laying yet another ‘stripe’. What we are seeing here is your defenses running full force against what has been exposed as your hypocrisy. When people have brought your harshness/bitterness/lack of love in your emails to you, you have always hid behind the line that what you were saying was true even though it didn’t sound loving. That it was better to reprove someone in love even if you had to use tough love. That you had such concern for the members of the forum that you would take a stand and do this. When people do it to you, you claim ‘how little love there is among those who profess godliness’. You will do anything but address the issue of hypocrisy in your life, even to the point of lashing out at those who expose it (slade deserves an apology from you for the way you have reacted to his reprovals). None of us want you to be in the position you are in Judy. We all want to see you move beyond it to healing. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:25 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy's Plagiarism On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:08:13 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jonathan in dark blue as JBH. JT: Jonathan, what you are trying to insert yourself into here really is not your business. If you can not be part of the answer, why make yourself part of the problem? I know this is a public list but your input on this thread tonight just stokes the fire and feeds discord. Best to stick with your theology. Judyt --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Are there any bad Christian's in the House?
Izzy, Here is what I see you saying here. Please correct me if I am wrong: If a Christian sins they become a non-Christian and go to hell. It is like you have some fairy tale image that a Christian NEVER practices hypocrisy, deceit, and dishonesty. Are all scriptures against sin in the Bible for non-Christians? All pleas for holiness? All scriptures against lying just for those who do not know Christ? No continual walk of sanctification, each day holier than the one before, each day putting behind yet more childish things, being refined by God’s fire? If Godly living is something Christians just naturally do then why the constant appeal to it in scripture? Do I need to list all the people’s names on TruthTalk and then put the appropriate moniker beside them (hypocrite, deceiver, liar)? Everyone of us would have all three. Everyone. And yet we are all believers. Believers DO these things. It is hopeful that they do them less than non-Christians. Last time I looked those that were closest to Jesus did these things too. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:51 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Are there any bad Christian's in the House? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:12 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Are there any bad Christian's in the House? Izzy wrote: Bill, this is NOT something of which one should accuse a Believer, as Believers do NOT do these things (hypocrisy, the deceit, the dishonesty). Izzy Jonathan responds, attempting to keep himself reined in: Are you kidding me? Christians are not hypocrites, deceitful or dishonest? You obviously have never met a Christian then. You have also never looked in the mirror. If you truly think this you are living in a make-believe Candy-Land world. Happy place, happy place, take me to my happy place. Jonathan J, my ex once accused me of living in “La-La Land”. I told him “I’d rather live in La-La Land than in hell with you.” I rarely meet a real Christian. Most just talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. Jesus said they would be few and far between, as they are on the narrow road. The road is broad that leads to hell. I’m sure you don’t want to hear any “scripture bombs” regarding what Jesus had to say about who is real and who is fake. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
[TruthTalk] Are there any bad Christian's in the House?
Izzy wrote: Bill, this is NOT something of which one should accuse a Believer, as Believers do NOT do these things (hypocrisy, the deceit, the dishonesty). Izzy Jonathan responds, attempting to keep himself reined in: Are you kidding me? Christians are not hypocrites, deceitful or dishonest? You obviously have never met a Christian then. You have also never looked in the mirror. If you truly think this you are living in a make-believe Candy-Land world. Happy place, happy place, take me to my happy place. Jonathan --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Judy's Plagiarism
Jonathan in dark blue as JBH. On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:00:29 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I am not speaking of your plagiarism. I really care less about it... jt: Then why do you continue to feed comments like Gary's and help to keep the issue alive? You know, like "he who is without sin?" JBH: You (Judy) labeled what Gary said as an ad hominem. It wasn’t. You were wrong. You accused a brother of something that was not true. When David thought that John did this he went off his rocker and threatened to shun John. When you do it we just smile and say, “there she goes again”. And as usual you refuse to accept the moderator’s authority. You wouldn’t let you kids get away with this type of behavior but you like to express it here. unless you were jabbing pin and needles into others for plagiarism. Sometimes the words of another human being expresses our thoughts better than we can. I also don't care about "cuss words" unless it's overdone. These are not holiness issues to me. jt: So it does not bother you if sweet and bitter water come from the same fountain? JBH: Sweet and bitter water come from your typing hands daily. As proved to you lately sweet and bitter water have come from Finis Dake. I am extremely concerned over hypocrisy. I fear it in my own life and I yearn for people to express their concerns regarding the hypocrisy they smell in MY life. This trait manifested in the last week, and you have NOT repented of it. jt: Excuse me? I have publicly repented/apologized to people on this list and I have dealt with my own heart before the Lord. Do you need something special Slade? I'm sorry that this does not measure up to your standard. Will you forgive me? JBH: You halfheartedly apologized to people on this list. Bill accepted it. What Slade points out is that while you apologized for your plagiarism you did not apologize/repent of your hypocrisy which is well documented on this forum. You have been called on it and we should all expect David Miller to jump on you like he jumped on John threatening that you be shunned and removed from fellowship until you have repented. If he does not then we know that he just has it in for John and could care less about the rest of the forum. In fact, you hide behind weak screens like "Dake is not a theologian" and "Dake was a spirit filled man which I believe gives one more insight into certain truths" which makes it all right for YOU to quote him, but quotes of other men are worthless, incessant wadings. jt: The late Finis Dake was not a theologian and what I quoted was truth no matter where it came from. But Truth appears only a minor issue here some seem to be much more interested in nit picking. JBH: Finis Dake was a theologian. You are a theologian. Please learn the term. Is a theologian only one who gets paid to theologize? Silly. Truth is much more of an issue here than you seem to be able to see. There are few people that I know of that nit pick more than you do. The old plank in the eye thing Judy. All you have to do is go back through those archives and see how many times you say something like "all I need is Scripture." What's worse, is you criticize the Pharisees for being hypocrites!!! jt: What I meant to convey is that if we are going to major on talking about truth we would be better off to stay with Scripture; as for the Pharisees, Jesus called them hypocrites so I am in agreement with the Master. They put loads on other people that they weren't willing to carry themselves and I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't some of the Pharisee spirit here right now. JBH: You change your tune more than an old piano. Scripture does not have a monopoly on truth. You have yet to use scripture in this post. Blah blah blah. Apparently, the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. jt: The Pharisee tree? JBH: A typical poke. Nice bitter water coming from this water fountain. THIS is the issue of greatest concern. It's not a case of rubbing it in. jt: Then why do you keep doing so and delving into all the details again when you do it? JBH: Because you have a lot to learn about yourself. Please learn it so we don’t have to continue to do this with you every month. It's a case of wishing you the best in your life. Hypocrisy will destroy you unless you give it to God. -- slade jt: What does God want with it Slade? My you have a back handed way of wishing me the best in life - Like nothing I say makes a dent in whatever you have already concluded concerning me. But Oh well, all I can say is that I am so glad God does not hold grudges. JBH: You don’t think God holds grudges? Hmmm somehow I think you are misleading people here. Do you think God sends people to Hell? Sounds like q
RE: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech
Slade is right Terry. You are being completely pagan here and above all talking absolute nonsense. God is not violating a rule (as you call it) that humans function under by not having a mother. That is called anthropological theology (man to God). It uses what we experience and then slaps it onto God making Him experience exactly what we experience. True Christianity works the other way around (theological anthropology – God to man). Using your line of reasoning you could ask, Who was the Father’s father or mother? Who was the Spirit’s mother? That makes just as much logical sense as asking who was the mother of Jesus that predates Mary? Shall we ask who His grandmother was as well? Complete and utter nonsense. It astounds me that the fundamentalists on this forum (Terry, Izzy, Judy and David) are all disagreeing with what has been considered one of the more important articles of faith by orthodoxy. It is the liberals (Bill, Lance, John, and myself) along with the Messianic Jews (Slade, Kay, and Jeff) who are having to teach you what you should already be rock solid on. This should be your bread and water. Instead you cannibalize your own faith. It is a sad day when even the fundamentalists have no idea what they believe and why. I keep pinching myself and hope that I am dreaming. Alas, I am not. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:24 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech Slade Henson wrote: I who has always been the eternal mother? Completely pagan. Get out of Titles and get into Function and the problem disappears. - slade = I don't quite understand. Is it pagan to ask a sensible question? I don't have a problem. Those who disagree with me have the problem. They cannot come up with any mother of Jesus that predates Mary. God does not violate His own rules. It takes a father and a mother to make a son. Think about that. Terry --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] So Long David Miller, and Thanks for the Fish
Me in Green. On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:33:42 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, I wish you had been more forthcoming of the fact that you are a card carrying cult member of the Jehovah Witness’. At least your theology now makes sense to me. One of the problems of creating your own theology from ones own bible reading and denying the use of other theologians is that one is unable to be able to place what one learns in a proper context. There is no reference, other than a catch-all that the Spirit will teach me everything, to be able to sort through whether something is sound doctrine. Even comparing scripture with scripture will get you nowhere if you have misunderstood the first (or second, third etc.) scripture. You have greatly misunderstood the verse regarding the Spirit leading us into all truth. jt: I've not "created" anything Jonathan - the book has already been written. Funny that you defend "other theologians" like they are all saying the same thing or something... as for the great misunderstanding - what is there to misunderstand? Two questions: 1) What are tomorrow night’s Lotto 649 numbers? 2) What is the 4099888th digit of pi? jt: I'm not into the occult Jonathan nor is God involved in magic. You will notice that although there are answers to the above questions the Spirit did not lead you into ‘truth’ regarding them. Leading us into truth is not the same as leading us into all information. This is why you, as a student of God’s word need to learn more about Greek and Hebrew. jt: Studying to show oneself approved unto God by rightly dividing the Word of Truth does not need to involve striving over words Jonathan. In fact we are warned against such, along with endless genealogies. JBH: Actually it does mean striving over words as long as they are pointing to Christ. God has chosen to use words to communicate much of Himself. And for the record I find the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles rather boring J To expect the Spirit to interpret the original intent while you lazily and mystically read your Bible is foolhardy. So, we must ask ourselves, what is this truth that the Spirit will lead us into? I would suggest that this truth is the Truth – Jesus Christ. The Spirit will lead you to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Spirit will not do your Bible Studies for you. He will not help you locate that next verse in the massive concordance that sits beside you as you read this. jt: I don't expect Him to locate verses in my concordance or words in my dictionary. I do expect that He will give me understanding since he is the author of what I am attempting to understanding and Jesus is the ONLY mediator. JBH: You are correct that Jesus is the only mediator. However, you are incorrect in your use of context. Jesus is the only mediator between you and the Father. To mediate is not to give information; it is to restore relationship; nothing to do with Bible Study. Although you claim that you are not into the occult above you seem to believe that God will mystically give you understanding without you having to work it out. Why read the Bible at all if the Spirit will give you all the information you need? Why did God give us brains? I would suggest that He gave them to us in order that we may use them. For all the love of scripture that you seem to have (honestly) I am mystified that you could care less to find out what they actually meant in their original languages. To me that makes me think that you would rather use the Bible as a tool to justify your own beliefs instead of having the Bible speak for itself. Cults begin from people that think that it is just God, the Bible, and them. This explains where you have gotten some of your cultic beliefs (other than from the Watchtower). jt: No Cults begin with opportunists who desire a following and who twist God's Word so that they are indispensible and they are the only ones with the inside track to God. JBH: For the record I suggested that you have cultic beliefs in the sentence quoted above. This is different than being part of a cult although I can see why the Watchtower reference would throw you off. And cults always begin with people thinking that their interpretation of scripture is given by God Himself with no mediator. I don’t know of a single cult that has not begun this way. ‘Me, God and the Bible’ is dangerous. As much as you would like to deny it, to deny the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ is pure heresy and places you outside of the ‘faith’ by orthodox standards. Please note it does not place you outside of the faith for me. To me you are wholly accepted. jt: I don't see the phrase "eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ" anywhere, not anywhere in scripture and would have to cobble
RE: [TruthTalk] So Long David Miller, and Thanks for the Fish
Judy, I wish you had been more forthcoming of the fact that you are a card carrying cult member of the Jehovah Witness’. At least your theology now makes sense to me. One of the problems of creating your own theology from ones own bible reading and denying the use of other theologians is that one is unable to be able to place what one learns in a proper context. There is no reference, other than a catch-all that the Spirit will teach me everything, to be able to sort through whether something is sound doctrine. Even comparing scripture with scripture will get you nowhere if you have misunderstood the first (or second, third etc.) scripture. You have greatly misunderstood the verse regarding the Spirit leading us into all truth. Two questions: 1) What are tomorrow night’s Lotto 649 numbers? 2) What is the 4099888th digit of pi? You will notice that although there are answers to the above questions the Spirit did not lead you into ‘truth’ regarding them. Leading us into truth is not the same as leading us into all information. This is why you, as a student of God’s word need to learn more about Greek and Hebrew. To expect the Spirit to interpret the original intent while you lazily and mystically read your Bible is foolhardy. So, we must ask ourselves, what is this truth that the Spirit will lead us into? I would suggest that this truth is the Truth – Jesus Christ. The Spirit will lead you to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Spirit will not do your Bible Studies for you. He will not help you locate that next verse in the massive concordance that sits beside you as you read this. Cults begin from people that think that it is just God, the Bible, and them. This explains where you have gotten some of your cultic beliefs (other than from the Watchtower). As much as you would like to deny it, to deny the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ is pure heresy and places you outside of the ‘faith’ by orthodox standards. Please note it does not place you outside of the faith for me. To me you are wholly accepted. And for the record I do not commend David Miller for his faithfulness to the truth. Rather I commend him for his faithfulness to his opinion. Unfortunately they are not one and the same. It is because they are not that he had to leave Truthtalk. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 6:46 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] So Long David Miller, and Thanks for the Fish In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. is the "faith" once delivered to the saints Jonathan. We ought to be commending David Miller for his faithfulness to the Truth. jht On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:35:40 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dear David Miller, After weeks of deliberation all of us have come to a consensus that you must go. I am sure that this is not a surprise to you. The continual use of violent logic attacks on the members of Truthtalk and the continued plagiarizing of biblical texts contribute to this decision. The pride exhibited in your continual use of the Latin term [sic] has put most of us over the edge. Today you have stepped outside the bounds of the Christian faith. By denying the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ you have thrown away any claim to living out the faith that was once delivered to all saints. You have said goodbye to historic orthodoxy and welcomed radical liberalism. It is my duty to inform you, as seconded by Linda Shields, that you will now be shunned and removed from fellowship by all Truthtalk participants. Once repentance, including copious amounts of tears has taken place you may apply for membership again by a handwritten note in Hebrew to Slade Henson. It is hoped that by taking this action you will come to your senses and begin to act in a Christian manner. Until then we must deliver you to the wiles and fancies of your mind. Be safe, but be gone. The Truthtalk Bouncer, Jonathan Hughes --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
[TruthTalk] So Long David Miller, and Thanks for the Fish
Dear David Miller, After weeks of deliberation all of us have come to a consensus that you must go. I am sure that this is not a surprise to you. The continual use of violent logic attacks on the members of Truthtalk and the continued plagiarizing of biblical texts contribute to this decision. The pride exhibited in your continual use of the Latin term [sic] has put most of us over the edge. Today you have stepped outside the bounds of the Christian faith. By denying the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ you have thrown away any claim to living out the faith that was once delivered to all saints. You have said goodbye to historic orthodoxy and welcomed radical liberalism. It is my duty to inform you, as seconded by Linda Shields, that you will now be shunned and removed from fellowship by all Truthtalk participants. Once repentance, including copious amounts of tears has taken place you may apply for membership again by a handwritten note in Hebrew to Slade Henson. It is hoped that by taking this action you will come to your senses and begin to act in a Christian manner. Until then we must deliver you to the wiles and fancies of your mind. Be safe, but be gone. The Truthtalk Bouncer, Jonathan Hughes --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
[TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship of Christ
Hi Judy, What follows below is an article/sermon by John MacArthur. He used to hold the position you espouse below but after much study changed his mind and affirmed what scripture says about Jesus Christ. I think you will find it interesting. REEXAMINING THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST by John F. MacArthur 1939 - present Near the end of his life, Augustine of Hippo meticulously reviewed everything he had ever published. He wrote an entire catalogue of his own works, a painstakingly annotated bibliography with hundreds of revisions and amendments to correct flaws he saw in his own earlier material. The book, titled Retractationes, is powerful evidence of Augustine's humility and zeal for truth. Not one of his earlier publications escaped the more mature theologian's scrutiny. And Augustine was as bold in recanting the errors he perceived in his own work as he had been in refuting the heresies of his theological adversaries. Because he reviewed his works in Chronological order, Retractationes is a wonderful memoir of Augustine's relentless, lifelong pursuit of spiritual maturity and theological precision. His forthrightness in addressing his own shortcomings is a good example of why Augustine is esteemed as a rare model of both godliness and scholarship. I've often wished for the opportunity to review and amend all my own published material, but I doubt I'll ever have the time or the energy to undertake the task. In this day of electronic recordings, my "published" material includes not just the books I have written but also nearly every sermon I have ever preached--about 3,000 of them so far. It's far too much material to be able to critique exhaustively the way I wish I could. Not that I would make sweeping or wholesale revisions. Throughout my ministry, my theological perspective has remained fundamentally unchanged. The basic doctrinal statement I subscribe to today is the same one I affirmed when I was ordained to the ministry almost 40 years ago. I am not someone whose convictions are easily malleable. I trust I am not a reed shaken in the wind, or the kind of person who is naively tossed about by various winds of doctrine. But at the same time, I do not want to be resistant to growth and correction, especially when my comprehension of Scripture can be sharpened. If more precise understanding on an important point of doctrine demands a change in my thinking--even if it means amending or correcting already-published material--I want to be willing to make the necessary changes. I have made many such revisions over the years, often taking measures to delete erroneous or confusing statements from my own tapes, and sometimes even preaching again through portions of Scripture with a better understanding of the text. Whenever I have changed my opinion on any significant doctrinal issue, I have sought to make my change of opinion, and the reasons for it, as clear as possible. To that end, I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of "incarnational sonship." Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ's sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation. My earlier position arose out of my study of Hebrews 1:5, which appears to speak of the Father's begetting the Son as an event that takes place at a point in time: "This day have I begotten thee"; "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son" (emphasis added). That verse presents some very difficult concepts. "Begetting" normally speaks of a person's origin. Moreover, sons are generally subordinate to their fathers. I therefore found it difficult to see how an eternal Father-Son relationship could be compatible with perfect equality and eternality among the Persons of the Trinity. "Sonship," I concluded, bespeaks the place of voluntary submission to which Christ condescended at His incarnation (cf. Phil. 2:5-8; John 5:19). My aim was to defend, not in any way to undermine, Christ's absolute deity and eternality. And I endeavored from the beginning to make that as clear as possible. Nonetheless, when I first published my views on the subject (in my 1983 commentary on Hebrews), a few outspoken critics accused me of attacking the deity of Christ or questioning His eternality. In 1989 I responded to those charges in a plenary session of the annual convention of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (the denomination that ordained me). Shortly after that session, to explain my views further, I wrote an article titled "The Sonship of Christ" (published in 1991 in booklet form). In both instances I reemphasized my unqualified and unequivocal commitment to the biblical truth that Jesus is eternally God. The "incarnational sonship" view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy. The heart of
RE: [TruthTalk] emergency prayer request
Consider them prayed for. Please update us as soon as you know of their situation. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 3:34 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] emergency prayer request Please say a prayer for my son, Todd, and his family (with a newborn and 3 other children 6 and under) who have been sitting for an hour on a highway in Tennessee, which is apparently now closed due to snow conditions. Pray for their safe and timely trip to St. Louis today, or that they find a warm hotel for the night, and food. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth
jt: Jesus didn't say there was no generational sin involved, what he did say was that the problem was not with the man or his parents and that His (Jesus) priority at that moment was to work the works of God. Remember? Jesus came to do good and to heal ALL who were oppressed by the devil for God was with Him. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is making scripture say what we want it to say to back up our regulative beliefs. (1 Judy 13:20) JBH --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor
Let me say it again: King David: Bad Fruit, Good guy, accepted in Christ. Abraham: Bad Fruit, Good guy, accepted in Christ. Terry (and everyone else on TT including the sinless one): Bad Fruit, Good guy, accepted in Christ. Actually, it wasn’t me that said that. I am just repeating it for your listening pleasure. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor Jeff Powers wrote: It means despite some misguided attempts at interpreting scripture John thinks as I do, Judas Iscariot is not neccessarily burning in hell. Judas did what he did from the heart, he loved Yeshua and in his own way was attempting to force Yeshua's hand. Did it backfire? some might say yes, but it worked according to God's plan. To me thats as it had to be. But some have to kick the scapegoat even harder than he kicked himself. May I suggest an intense study of Jewish history? It seems lacking here! jeff = Let me say it again. Good fruit, good guy. Bad fruit, bad guy. The old wheat and tares thing. Actually, it wasn't me that said that. I am just repeating it for your listening pleasure. Terry --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor
What a moronic comment Terry. Satan just loves when people act like you do. (Using the words Satan and love in the same sentence should touch off another topic). Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/16/2004 8:34:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: God saved me in spite of myself. It is a song about how I see the spiritual world. I have never had the opinion that I was unsaved -- but I can sing "I once was lost" with feeling. JD Opinions aside, brother John, could you clarify the above for me? I know that you cannot be saying that you have always been saved, but that is what I got at first reading. Terry You have heard of "original sin?" What about "original salvation." ? Anyway -- what I mean is that I have never considered myself lost. That does not mean such was the case. I was raised going to church. I grew up in church. My dad was an elder in church. There has never been a time in my thoughtful existence when I did not think God in Christ died for me. I was baptised at age 12, back in '57. But I knew I was going to commit to that ordinance years before. If "repentance" means a change of mind, I have never had the need to repent. Often the need to confess. Am I the only one? I don't think so. I am going to go hide, now. John = Thanks for the explanation. Better pull the covers over your head and pucker up. You have admitted to something approaching the unforgivable sin and I expect there will be comments that are not entirely favorable. Terry --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor
Judy, If ‘all things live and have their being’ in Christ do you believe that Satan would be included in ‘all things’? There must be something (SomeOne) who upholds our existence. This includes the existence of Satan. I also do not understand how this works but if Christ is Lord of all, and if all things live and have their being because of Jesus Christ than we must include Satan here. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor Lance writes: I do not know how to speak on this. I've, so far, only understood the Incarnation as relates to the Cosmos. I'm certainly open to hearing how he might be included. jt: He had been kicked out of heaven and at the time of the incarnation was part of the 'Cosmos' so how could you exclude him according to your own logic - of course you do know that this will brand you as a heretick don't you? Just be glad you don't live in Geneva during the 1500's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] JBPhillips once wrote a book, which while not great, did have a great title: 'Your God is Too Small'. jt: So?? Are you going to propose that even the devil was part of the incarnation? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth
Yes it does exist and I ordered it for you yesterday. Does this wreck the surprise! Jonathab From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 6:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth 'Older' brother? Who let that cat out..? Birthday coming up. Birthday wish..CD collection Best of Ivan Rebroff (should there exist such a CD.) I have not shopped, do not shop and, will not shop. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 17, 2004 03:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:15:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, now that I've unpacked the humour (Cdn sp) in what you say I appreciate you so much more than I used to. However, in the event I've seen humour (Cdn sp) when you were being serious then I'm concerned about you. Is there any TT participant, other than David, who actually thought the Bishop of California incapable of 'Spirit-led' independent thought? Bless you , my older brother. Rev Smithson --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor
My main objection was that Izzy characterized yet again that Lance does not give a whit about scripture just because what she believed about the answer to whether Judas is saved or not is made clear in the English version of her text. Izzy has a bee in her bonnet against anyone that she labels a liberal. She thinks that all liberals must view scripture in a way that is far lower than her own exalted view. I called it a scripture bomb. She felt that by throwing out a verse the discussion was over. In reality her misunderstanding of the verse caused her to come to the wrong conclusion. Izzy (and I believe Judy) have made the claim that they do not need to understand Greek or Hebrew because 'the Spirit will lead us into all truth'. This of course is a complete misunderstanding of this verse. All truth does not equal all information. It equals the breaking in upon ourselves by God a revelation of His Son Jesus Christ - the Truth. I then gave an explanation of how understanding the Greek text behind the verse she quoted from John would allow her to understand why people believe that it is possible that Judas will be in heaven. Following basic grammar I asked her to consider what the words 'keep' mean in Greek (as two are used) to illustrate what it meant when it says that Judas was lost/not kept. Because Izzy was reading it in English she was unable to see that Jesus was not using the word 'keep' in a salvation sense. Think of Jesus' words to Peter, 'Do you love me?' in John 21. Reading in English one would think Jesus uses the same word for love that Peter replies with. But Peter uses phileo while Jesus uses agapao. Without knowing Greek one could easily come to the wrong conclusion about this passage. Knowing the Greek one can exegete it with far more confidence. Hope this helps. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 6:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor Izzy wrote: > I'm from Missouri, so show me specifically > what your objection is please. I am very interested in seeing if Slade or Jonathan will give you an answer in the spirit of meekness. Let's wait and see. In the meantime, patience and peace be upon you, Izzy. :-) David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 -- "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] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor
Ahh the typical Izzy can attack anyone else's character but she is given free reign? Won't work with me David. Izzy needs to stand up and be responsible for the words she puts out on this forum. I have made it clear many times I am sick of her maligning liberals (both politicians and theologians) in nearly every one of her posts. There is never any substance behind her attacks. Her slight to Lance today, while ignored by him, was uncalled for. Her holier, more scriptural than thou attitude is just plain tiring. Reprove me all you want but at least reprove her first. In regards to the rest of your comments I believe you must deal with the words 'keep' before you deal with the words 'lost/perished' and 'son of perdition.' Basic syntax. Starting with your 'hot' words before dealing with what Jesus says leading up to them will result in improper exegesis. Starting with just the words instead of starting with who Jesus is will also lead to improper exegesis. You and I exegete differently. If you already think that your position is a 'slam dunk' than I doubt you are willing to consider any other position. Case in point: you were proven dead wrong in your exegesis of the Abraham/sin issue. Did you change your mind once the truth was out? Of course not. In reality I don't think you are here to discuss truth. Rather you are here to discuss your opinion (something you equate with the truth). Then again I just may be in a bad mood. I am sad to see that my plea for you to remove your trite 'peace be with you' went unheeded. At least change it up a bit every now and again. There is a reason Hallmark cards fail to move the spirit. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor Jonathan, I'm glad to see you posting again. I would be interested in discussing this Judas thing if you are, but I'm a little bit intimidated that I might be maligned for having a different opinion. You really did not need to be so hard on attacking Izzy's character. Are you interested in discussing the idea of Judas being lost or not? In regards to your comments on the passage that Izzy brought up (John 17:12), all that Greek analysis of the words translated keep are not really relevant. That whole discussion seems like a big smoke screen to trick those who don't study Greek. The important word is "lost" / "perished" (Greek = "apollumi") and also the phrase, "son of perdition" (a distinctly apocolyptic phrase important in the study of prophecy). These are the hot words in the passage. Do you want to talk about it? There are some other passages that have important bearing on this concept also. Let me know if you have any interest. As far as I am concerned, the idea that Judas is damned to hell fire is a slam dunk. Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 -- "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] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor
Typical response Terry. Just after we had a big long discussion on Abraham and King David. Both exhibited bad fruit at certain points in their life. Both are considered good guys. You only know them based upon who they are in Christ. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor Jonathan Hughes wrote: Hi Izzy, Now that you realize that Jesus was not speaking about salvation in this passage you may be interested in following up on why some people think that Judas was indeed saved. These are people who love scripture just as much as you do; in fact I would suggest that they may love it more. They are willing to put a little bit more effort into their reading. Lance suggested a book. I have put an article for you below that will help you begin your studies. When it all comes down to it I suggest you take Lance’s point of view that only God knows if Judas will be in heaven or not. Jonathan === You Will know them. by their fruit. Good fruit, good guy. Bad fruit, bad guy. Terry --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Intentional sin -- the Judas factor
Hi Izzy, Your comment below disturbs me. First you drop a scripture bomb as if that is all that is needed to be said for the subject to be closed. Then you say that Jesus says that Judas was lost. Then you imply that Lance has a lower view of scripture than your own exalted one. It all has to do with your erroneous views of theology – thinking that scripture doesn’t mean a whit to liberals is not only insulting, it is just plain stupid. Others before me have expressed to you that taking some time to study the Greek or Hebrew that was used to write the Bible you read would be helpful for you. This is yet another one of those cases. Concerning the verse you state below (John 17:12) please read the following from an article posted at: http://www.workmanmin.com/Studies/Judas.pdf The first instance of “kept” is the Greek ‘tereo’ (Strong’s #5083: pronounced tay-reh’-o). This word means ‘to watch with the intent of preserving’ (i.e. ‘maintain’). It is the same word used in 17:6 and 11. In 17:6 it refers directly to the apostles (with application to believers) who have ‘maintained’ the unity and purpose of Christ’s instruction (salvation by Grace) [that includes Judas, by the way]. In 17:11 it refers to Christ’s petition to God the Father to ‘maintain’ the practical po-sition of the apostles despite the influence of the world. Both times the word means ‘maintain.’ The first instance of the word ‘keep’ in 17:12 refers to Christ having ‘maintained’ the apostles posi-tional security by the authority vested in Him by the Father. The second instance of the word ‘keep’ is a different Greek word. This one is ‘phulasso’ (Strong’s #5442: pronounced foo-las’-so). It literally means “to guard from outside influence” (i.e., to ‘isolate’). In this case the context is that Christ ‘isolated’ the apostles from Satan’s direct influ-ence [i.e. Mk.8:33; Jn.18:9]. All that is except Judas. Judas was not ‘isolated’ from Satan. Posi-tionally speaking, there is no reason to believe that Judas was not still saved, but practically speak-ing it is obvious that he was left unprotected from Satan’s onslaught—the results of which we are already familiar with. Now that you realize that Jesus was not speaking about salvation in this passage you may be interested in following up on why some people think that Judas was indeed saved. These are people who love scripture just as much as you do; in fact I would suggest that they may love it more. They are willing to put a little bit more effort into their reading. Lance suggested a book. I have put an article for you below that will help you begin your studies. When it all comes down to it I suggest you take Lance’s point of view that only God knows if Judas will be in heaven or not. Jonathan Was Judas Saved? - February 11, 2002 First and foremost, I highly encourage you to read Matthew 10 before reading this article. Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Matthew 10:1 Here it says that Jesus gave these 12 authority. This was not some sort of high priest authority, nor was it kingship over some province in Judea. It was kingdom authority, and kingdom authority belongs to those who are part of the kingdom. Then the chapter goes on to list the 12 apostles in verses 2-4. Take note of verse 4. ...and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. To betray somebody, requires a sense of trust. What sort of trust did Christ have with Judas? He had a trust established on faith. After all, Judas was a disciple of Christ, as well as an apostle. What did Christ say of those who are to be his disciples? Luke 14:27 has the answer... Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. So, for the scriptures to call Judas a disciple, means that Judas was living the "crucified life." Which would mean Judas Iscariot, who later betrayed our Lord, was a geniune, born again believer. He followed Christ time and time again. Christ called him, and he came. When Jesus lost many of his disciples, Judas was one that remained. People often try to discount the salvation of Judas by showing various "sins of Judas" throughout the gospel, and saying that Judas was simply following Christ for selfish gain. However, many other believers who are in God's "hall of fame of faith" in Hebrews 11 were also shown from time to time, to be living in some sort of sins. Yet they are known as champions of the faith. Does this mean that their sins show that they never really believed? Of course not. It simply shows that they sinned, but when they stumbled, they got back up. This is part of the process known as sanctification. And to further elaborate on the "sins of Judas"; I think it is funny that people often try to point out the sins of Judas, and say "Look, Judas was never a believer!" but of themselves they say "I am just lukew
[TruthTalk] Revealed Truth
This is in response to the thread regarding logic, rationality, and rationalism. I have started a new thread in case people want to continue with the original. After reading this thread for the past week I am convinced that what we really need to be speaking of is revelation or the concept of revealed truth. The question we need to ask is: Can someone come to a saving knowledge of Christ through logic and rationality alone? This would involve a discussion of natural law and creation (and most likely the first few chapters of Romans). Apologetics (the study of creating logical/rational proofs for a religion) begins with the premise that by breaking down the intellectual barriers to faith, one can come to know God. This is why all apologetic books begin with ‘proofs’ of God’s existence followed closely by some sort of rational outlook on evil and suffering. Once these two mountains are cleared the apologete (perhaps a word I just made up, but I like it) believes one can be ushered into the kingdom post haste. The next step would be to discuss whether one could have as TF Torrance calls it ‘Theological Science’. David may be surprised to learn that while he has received a lot of opposition to his rationalism our favourite theologian has written books such as ‘Theological Science’, ‘God and Rationality’, ‘Divine and Contingent Order’ etc. We need to do a better job explaining what we believe the place of rationality is within the faith. Jonathan --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational?
David, You continue to help us define anthropological theology. You define all things in God from a human standpoint instead of allowing God's revelation in Himself to define all things human (called theological anthropology). You did it with your word study on 'hate' and you are doing it again now. You project onto God your own mythology and then call it theology. Please define grace as administered in the Person of Jesus Christ and how you feel this is logical. Consider that if all truth will align with reason and logic then you may be equating logic with Jesus Christ (Jesus being the Truth). Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational? David Miller wrote: >> ...all truth will align with reason and logic. >> ...truth will not be found to be illogical and unreasonable. Slade wrote: > What about the "foolishness of Messiah?" Lance wrote: > IMO this is FALSE. ... Please say more... You guys are not giving me much to go on in terms of what you find unacceptable with my statement. What is "foolishness of Messiah"? Messiah is not foolish, nor is he irrational. Are you perhaps referring to the "foolishness of preaching" mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:18? Even here, this passage does not mean that the preaching of the cross is irrational. Rather, it speaks of how it APPEARS irrational to the Greeks who seek after wisdom. For the one who lacks the Judaic background of the Torah, the idea of the cross appears irrational. What does the blood of someone being executed have to do with me? Of course, to those of us who are saved, the preaching of the cross is one of the most incredibly wise constructs of understanding that we have ever encountered. Logic takes two forms, and unless we recognize this, there is bound to be confusion about what we are talking about when we describe a concept as "illogical" or "irrational." 1. Deductive Logic: This is a form of reasoning that goes from the more general to the specific. This is the only form of logic which can "PROVE" something. A syllogism is an example of this type of logic. We might construct a general observation: Only birds have feathers. Then we consider a more specific axiom: Penguins have feathers. The conclusion can be made that penguins are birds. Deductive logic always leads to a truth that is proven, as long as the premises are known to be true. The only time the conclusion could be false is if one or more of the premises is found to be false. 2. Inductive Logic: This is a form of reasoning that proceeds from the specific to the general. This is what a theory is; for example, the idea of the "Theory of Everything" that we had talked about in some past posts. >From several specific observations, we try and make a general conclusion that accounts for and provides meaning for our observations. The conclusion may or may not be true. Conclusions drawn from inductive logic are always tentative. The best we can do is try and apply statistical analysis to assign a probability to our confidence in the truthfulness of the conclusion. Now consider the dispute between science and religion in terms of the sources of truth. Science does not accept that truth can come from any source other than from empirical observation. If it cannot be observed in the physical world and quantified mathematically, as far as science is concerned, it is not a source of truth. Religion, on the other hand, generally accepts the concept of revelation. Truth can be revealed to man through the spirit apart from observation of the material world. The Bible is an example of truth that comes through revelation. The Bible was produced when men were inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote their revelation down. Now revelation might initially appear irrational if it runs contrary to our general system of understanding. However, if the revelation is true, it must by necessity be logical. Otherwise, we would have to contend that God Almighty is an irrational and illogical being. One of the revelations we have is that Christ is the Truth. Therefore, to say that Truth is irrational or illogical would be equivalent to saying that Christ himself is irrational and illogical. Creation itself testifies to us that such is not the case. Creation is orderly and logical in every way. This is why science works, because it works at understanding the logical and rational laws of nature in order to predict future events given a certain set of causations. We have to accept the fact that truth must of necessity always be logical and rational. So why then does truth APPEAR to be illogical at times. The answer to this depends upon the type of logical inference being made. If it is a deductive form, a premise is likely to be faulty. This is why I spend time e
RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
David,
Well I am sure after my last 3 replies you probably have your persecution
hat on. You usually bring it out when people disagree with you. Oh how we
on the forum hate you right? Sigh. I expect an email dictating how I have
sinned by in any way illustrating the fallacies of your emails. Today you
gave me more fodder than usual. :)
Define epistemological humility David. See the very first post I put on
TruthTalk if you don't remember what it is. Note Lance's inclusion of
everyone ("called for by all"). It was no attack on Terry any more than it
was an attack on Slade/Jeff/Kay. This email tells us far more about a state
of your heart than of Lance's.
Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
Lance wrote:
> More epistemological humility is what
> is called for by all.
This is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the humility of the one who asks
questions rather than answering the questions. Terry had excellent
questions. His questions were avoided. This same phenomena happens with
many of my questions. No big deal. Sometimes not answering a question
tells us volumes. Right Terry? Some of us seem to understand this and some
apparently do not. Again, no big deal. I thought Terry expressed a lot of
humility in his questions. You perhaps don't understand how much humility
it takes to ask questions like this in this forum. God knows. God sees
Terry's humility, and he appreciates it!
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
--
"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] Rules and Relationships
Possibly one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen on TruthTalk. So much for being without sin Mr. Miller. John humbly illustrates an example from his own life and all you have to come back with is that you are so clearly above us all by not having an ex-wife of your own. Sad. Tactless. John certainly doesn't need me to defend him in this but I am embarrassed by your asinine reply. Something is clearly established in your posts Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Rules and Relationships John Smithson wrote: > My ex-wife also believed that rules were > more important than relationships. The Lord taught me many years ago that relationship is much more important than being right. Rules exist for the purpose of strengthening and bettering relationship. I hold relationship as much more important than rules, and this is clearly established by my not having an ex-wife. Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 -- "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] Individualism
David, Please define what the sin in the Garden of Eden was? Attempt to do it without using the words autonomy or individualism. Then define what Lucifer's sin was. Then figure out the difference between unity in diversity and autonomy. They are not equivalent. Consider co-humanity instead of an individual (See the opening chapters of Genesis). Consider the 'One and the Many' concept that Bill has shared with us before. Actually define autonomy and individualism, then define the gospel and you will see (hopefully as this is a grievous error that will influence much of your theology) how non-compatible they are. Ask yourself who the autonomous individual is subject to? Answer: no one. You also fall for a belief that if something succeeds than it must have God's blessing. This shows up in a lot of your writings. It is one of the few reasons you give for America being in the place it is today. Success is not history's proof of God's blessing. Go deeper. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Individualism Lance wrote: > Autonomy? Individualism? > Both are celebrated in your 'documents'. > Neither is compatible with the gospel. Your argument here is exactly the argument made by the English rulers for anyone leaving the "Church of England" to form congregational churches. The founding fathers of this country captured truths concerning individualism and freedom that the clergy of the churches missed. Open your eyes and see. Has not Providence been with what these men did? How can such be denied? History has affirmed the truth of it, a history through which only God can speak and not man. Autonomy and individualism is very compatible with the gospel. Our God is not a God of uniformity, but a God of unity in diversity. Just look at Creation. God made man male and female. Why? Diversity. Individualism. Unity through complementary function rather than through uniformity. Look at the multitude of species he created among the animals and plants. Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 -- "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 Sundar Singh Audio Book
Hi Izzy, I think I remember you mentioning that you liked Sundar Singh. There is a free audiobook (At the Master’s Feet) of his at the following address: http://www.freechristianaudiobooks.com/main.htm Jonathan --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
[TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
Here on TruthTalk we talk about truth. This usually is a dialogue with scripture. Tonight I was struck by a title of a book, “Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology”. The word theology means ‘God-talk’. All of us on this forum in some way (and often in different ways) paint a picture of who they believe God to be. This portrait becomes the God they pray to each night before bed and the God they praise when they lift their voice in song. Each of us believes that their version of God is the one clearly explained by scripture. All of us on this forum approach the thought of who God is from a different perspective or viewpoint. Often our ideas about who God is conflict with other people’s ideas of the same God. What I see being explained on this forum is a God who is actually conflicted within Himself. I call it the schizophrenic God. A trite example is when we speak of the God of the Old Testament versus the God of the New as if they portray two very different Gods. We speak of the law-giving God (the giver of Torah) and the God of grace as if they are mutually exclusive. We speak of a God who is love, who hates. We speak of a God who has more than one covenant, instead of one covenant that is renewed. When we approach certain scriptures it is almost as if we come to them with a certain part of God in mind. When we read Deuteronomy we read it with the Law-giving God in mind, not the God of grace. When we read of the mass slaughter of Israel’s neighbors we read it with the God who hates in the forefront, with the God who loves in the background. God becomes schizophrenic. There is one God who exists in relationship as Three Persons. There is no God behind God’s back. God is love. These three statements highlight my portrait of God. The first describes who God is. Any further explanation would bring up the name of Jesus Christ, our humanity and how they are joined. The second statement states that when we view God we cannot view Him as conflicted, as loving and hating, as law versus grace, as Old versus New. What we see in Jesus Christ is God. There is not another God who would act differently than Jesus waiting to surprise us. The fullness of God dwelt upon Him. The third is a definition of God’s heart. God has one heartbeat and it beats in love. Any definition of God hating, or God’s wrath must be a subset of God’s love. It cannot be an opposite. It must be God’s love in action. This also means that God has only one covenant. To have more than one would be to have a conflicted God. Throughout scripture we have evidence of the same covenant being renewed (Noah, Abraham, Jacob etc.). The new covenant that is mentioned in scripture is new only in the sense that it has finally been fulfilled by a human (Jesus Christ). It is the same covenant brought to fulfillment by the God-man. This Thanksgiving take a look at your God. Who is He? Is He divided in any way? Is He at conflict within Himself? Could all that you say about the Father be said of Jesus Christ? If you were to make three statements about Him what would they be? Jonathan --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
One way I use (and for the sake of a disclaimer I do not think this is the only way, nor is it the only way I use) to determine if what one says is of God is the response I feel within me. When I read this post all my senses gathered up to a zinging point. And yes I think I just made up the word ‘zinging.’ Sometimes a post on TT leads one to worship and praise. To think that God would do this for us amazes me. I like the fact that Avraham was in a deep sleep. I am going to ponder the significance of that. No wonder the scriptures constantly speak of God’s faithfulness in comparison to our unfaithfulness. Thank you Bill and slade for the posts on this topic today. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down? Perhaps the significance of "walking thorugh the pieces" needs to be understood, and the consequence is rather disturbing. In the culture of the area and at the time, when a covenant was to be made between two people, animals (owned by BOTH parties) would be cut in half and the pieces placed on two altars. The participants would walk together between the pieces (between the altars) thus a "covenant was cut" (the Biblical term for God's covenant making with humankind). The pretense suggests that if the people walking through the pieces break the covenant, may what happened to the animals also happen to them and their descendants. God passed through the pieces as a burning furnace while Avraham was in a deep sleep. Therefore God unilaterally passed through the pieces and God unilaterally is responsible for the keeping of the covenant. This explains why the Spirit of the Holy One is promised and the purpose of the Spirit is to help us KEEP the commandments God laid down for us during the time of Moses (please refer to my previous post entitled Walking in the Spirit for more information on [one of] the purpose[s] of the Spirit). -- slade --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] On TOE -- Relational Theology
Good morning Judy, A quick note on how we use the word incarnation (incarnate means to embody in human form). We should have cleared this up earlier. You are correct in that it is often just used in association with the birth of Jesus. When I use the word incarnation I am speaking of Jesus’s life from his birth right up to his ascension. I am speaking of the time God spent as God incarnate. This definitely includes (and climaxes upon) the cross. It is when God breaks into space/time to become the Godman. When you see us use the word incarnation please include all of the work Jesus did on earth including the magnificent cross. This is why sometimes in my posts I make a sentence quite awkward by mentioning Jesus’ birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. To avoid the awkwardness in the next paragraph I will just use the word incarnation to describe this. The other reason we use the word incarnation is to illustrate to people that we start before the cross and continue all the way to the cross and indeed past it. There is a reason that the passion narratives take up so much scripture but we cannot ignore that which went on before. By beginning at His birth (actually by beginning as the eternal Son) we can be sure we do not miss any of it. I hope this helps. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On TOE -- Relational Theology On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:14:41 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "Unfortunately my lunch break is over :)" You're amazing, Jonathan. You do on lunch break what takes me a snow day to consider. Judy asked, Why is it important? For this reason we also ... do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; ... giving thanks to the Father who ... has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. -- (See Col 1.9-20) jt: Thanks for your response Bill - My next question is. Why focus on the 'incarnation' when scripturally focus is on the cross? We are baptized into His death, and not on His birth. Notice the scripture above "having made peace through the blood of His Cross" judyt --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] A birthday request.
Hi Jeff, If you ever felt it to be appropriate I would like to hear the story of your wife. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A birthday request. I am a Widower, do ya still think its me? Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 22:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A birthday request. In a message dated 11/19/2004 9:52:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A middle aged Jewish TTer's birthday is Sunday. He's buying his wife a new house with two acres Kay Jeff or Slade ??? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Kabbalah
My Experience with Kabbalah I am a sucker for books on healing. I will buy them by the basketful. A year and a half ago I ordered a book called 'The 72 Names of God: Technology for the Soul' by Yehuda Berg. It was recommended to me by a health care provider that I trusted. I also bought his book 'The Power of Kabbalah'. Berg teaches Kabbalah lite and heads up the Kabbalah Center (www.kabbalah.com). I read them both. Once I got over the 'can this book help me' phase I realized that they were not for me. I found them overly slanted towards the occult in the sense that they were really a system of magic dressed in religious clothing. They involved a method of staring at Hebraic text (the Zohar) in order to receive the 'inner' meaning of the words. It didn't matter that one could not read the Hebrew. Logical understanding didn't matter. The words would mystically change your life. Although this sounds far-fetched our own doctrine of divine inspiration and the work of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture isn't so far afoot. It was this type of rationalization that led me to keep the books for two weeks. The type of Kabbalah espoused by these two books was really just a system of magic. My struggle with many fantasy novels such as Harry Potter is that they treat the Higher Power or God as a credit card. One does some sort of incantation and the Higher Power is forced to respond to the applicant. The Higher Power becomes subservient to the supplicator. There is no relationship between the two. When one removes relationship it becomes magic, something Christians are commanded to avoid. Needless to say the books were returned. Slade and David have both pointed out that there is a good form of Kabbalah, just as there is a good form of Christian spirituality. I hope that as time permits we can examine these. JBH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Kabbalah Thanks David. I spent a couple of hours at the bookstore last night and noticed a couple of books about Kabbalah in the Jewish/Chanukah section. This surprised me because I thought Kabbalah was a big secret of some kind. So I did some speed reading (wasn't about to buy them!)and could tell that they believe in reincarnation and in a God who is a "force", etc., which is very New Agey. And the goal is apparently to "become like God", which reminded me of what satan wanted to do. (However, we ARE to become like Christ aren't we?) I also knew that Madonna is into it now, which tells me how bad it is. But what surprised me was that the theories seemed to hold a whole lot of good truth! I know that satan uses a little truth to deceive, but this was truth that seemed like a lot of what Jesus taught, too. So I was pretty puzzled as to whether there is any "good" group of Kabbalah teaching, or if it is all definitely off limits. Any other info is appreciated on the topic. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kabbalah Izzy wrote: > Then what is Biblical Kabbalah? Is it also occult? Some might quibble about what I am going to say, but I think it will help put you on the right track. Christianity has had its "charismatic" participants, some solidly on track but others off into spiritism and occultism. In the same way, think of Kabbalah in Judaism. Some of it is very good, but not all. Whatever you do, don't believe everything you read. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants?
Hi Izzy, I believe that Lance wants to construct not just a theory to unify all known physical information but one that encompasses everything under the Person of Jesus Christ. I believe it to be a noble cause as well. You are correct that science does not need a theological counterpart. It does however, need to be submitted to the authority of who God is. I believe you are saying that below, just using different words. I also believe that you relate to both believers and non-believers. This is why Lance keeps hammering at you and Judy that you two indwell the gospel in many different ways. You may think he is being facetious but he really means it. We call it the great dance, the partaking of the divine nature, the living a life out of the center of Jesus Christ. Look at any post you have made about your family. Where does the love you have for your family come from? Straight from God’s love that is shared between the Father, Son, and Spirit. By sharing in His life, you love others. This is what Lance is getting at when he speaks of relating. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants? Hi Izzy, Hope this helps: Wikipedia defines the TOE as: A theory of everything (TOE) is a theory of theoretical physics and mathematics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena (i.e. "everything"). This is a scientific construct designed to encapsulate all of our scientific knowledge. Lance is asking what the theological counterpart of this scientific theory would be. Actually he may even be taking a step beyond this. I think he would say that the scientific theory of everything (TOE) would become a predicate (become part of, or a subset) of the theological theory of everything (TTOE). What is the meaning of the cosmos, of creation? We can sum up that meaning in the Person of Jesus Christ. As we do not separate God's acts from God's being we can substitute the incarnation (God with us in space and time as the Godman, fully God and fully human) for the words Jesus Christ. Lance is suggesting that we define all that we do and think through the lens of the incarnation. The incarnation being the focal point out of which we come to understand our lives. What we tend to do is use our theology to define our lives. Lance is suggesting that we allow God to define our theology. Lance goes on to suggest that in order to do this two things may need to occur: 1) Move past (not ignore) external relations to think of internal relations, or onto-relations as he likes to call them when we speak. The human person is defined by relationality. To be fully human is to relate. Out of these relations comes change and growth. 2) Indwell the Scriptures. The Word of God is capable of setting us free. When we allow God's Word to indwell us in light of who He is we come into this internal relation. Hope this helps. Based on what I have said, can you see why Slade's response this morning came out of 'internal relations'? Unfortunately my lunch break is over :) Jonathan Hughes Jonathan, I’m not sure anyone can use one theory to unify all know physical information. Good luck to whoever tries. I happen to believe that, if the Theory of Everything were true and factual, it would not need a theological counterpart. True science does not deny God. It confirms His handiwork. When we live our lives by the instructions of the Bible we ARE allowing God to define our theology—and the everything we do is an act of worship. I don’t know who Lance is preaching to about relating, but I think I do plenty of that, with Believers and non-believers. Since I have been dwelling on the scriptures for 30+ years I think they are quite a part of me by now. The Holy Spirit definitely indwells me. So it all seems like much ado about what is already going on for your average Believer to me. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Jonathan in Green. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan wrote: > ... the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc. David: If you go back and look, I think you will find that YOU changed the meaning of Terry's post. I do not remember him using the word "liar." He said that perhaps it would have been better to use the word "lie." In other words, his focus was upon what was said and not who said it. This is proper TruthTalk debate. We attack IDEAS not the people who say them. Jonathan: There are a few things one can say here. To tell a lie is to be a liar. To believe a lie is not. So Terry says that next time he sees a lie on the list he will call it a lie. The implication is that I am telling a lie, not that I believe a lie. You will see that John took this the same way I did when he posted how the difference between doggy doo doo and liar is not a beneficial one. Lance also responded by prefacing his next post to Terry as the ‘liar’ responds. When three people see something I would suggest that ‘liar’ would be an appropriate translation for what Terry was attempting to say. Unless he clarifies the point we are at a standstill. And in fact, we should just leave the whole episode behind and go forward. Jonathan continues: Secondly, I do not think we are on TruthTalk to debate or attack anything. I do believe you think that Truthtalk is the proper forum for this. Our example is a God who claimed victory in weakness on the cross, not through attacking. A debate or attack implicates the outcome of a winner. We are not here to be winners. I believe you inherit this from your scientific background. In science we have objects. In order to ‘know’ them we must master them, reduce them to their most common elements, to humiliate them. Mastery over an object belongs only in science. When people become objects mastery should go out the window. Let me give an example. I can know things about my wife; her height, weight, colour of eyes etc. But the only way I can actually know her is by being changed by her. In order to do that I have to become vulnerable and accept her. On this forum the only time we will actually begin to know each other is if we become changed in the process of working out our relationships. John is an excellent example of this. He has come to know Lance and Bill by being changed by them. This involves a great deal of intimacy that the scientific method lacks. What I would beg of you is that you drop the debate/attack ideas thing and move on to intimacy with those on this forum. Take down the wall of logic and wrestle with the persons here. When this is done the well laid out argument becomes beneficial and people will begin to ‘hear’ you. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
A heavily moderated list becomes one man's empire. I would not hang around here if this list became heavily moderated. We are all adults. The moderator (in my opinion) should only enter the fray when it is absolutely called for. This list has been lightly moderated for the last 8-12 months. The best way to moderate in my opinion is to constantly lead by example by publishing strong, well defined, biblical posts. By doing this it leads us back to our purpose on this forum. This would be an apt description of Slade. The better the post is developed the better the chance that discussion and not parody, slander, or ignorance will take place. JBH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? DAVID MILLER I personally believe that Izzy has crossed the line many times. If I were moderator, I would be correcting it each time it happened. Many on TruthTalk know that years ago when I moderated the list, I did this often, and I took a lot of heat for it. Izzy, I do think you should consider your past one-line attacks and reconsider how helpful they are to discussion. Remember the rule: attack concepts not people. Challenge one another with the goal of leading all of us to a more enlightening position. SLADE I must alter my "lack" of moderation, I guess. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 -- "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] Tearing down?
I would like to see very little from Slade as Moderator on this list. I would prefer that the list was peer moderated. When we (including me) step over the line I expect to hear about it from our/my peers. In times past Lance has often said that I could have constructed a post differently, or that it would have been wiser if I had left certain parts out. You wouldn’t know it from Lance’s one line posts but he can be quite blunt J JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? moderatg the list requires some wisdom--like why quibble with this [issue?] while you say nothin' abot, e.g., Izzy constantly slanderg moderates (both politcl and theolgicl) as left-wingrs, etc; she plainly lied in her characterzation of Ryrie--you postd zero abt/to her! On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:57:29 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I think calling it "dog doo doo" would be a little less >offensive than "lie" because "lie" implies an intent to deceive --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Please replace all references to David Brook to David Brock. Thank you. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 5:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Ahh Judge Judy J Another Judyean tactic: Never ever, ever admit one is wrong, especially when one is wrong. Fight til the death! So Arafat’s pederasty went from being something that is just ‘reportedly’ true to ‘an open secret’? Nice work Judy. Please tell me which books and articles these are. You make it sound like there is a lot of them. I await your response. You will find that there was one book, and that all the articles (mostly David Frum, and WND) all use the gossip mentioned in this book. Now here is your penance. Go and google up “Arafat is gay”. See what type of articles you get Judy. You will get the one that you already posted from www.365gay.com (do you visit there for all your gay community news?). You will see lots and lots of pages of rumours and if you search real nicely you may find the book by a Romanian intelligence officer who claims he has tapes. Of course these tapes have never been released. Go to www.amazon.com and look up this book. Whatever you think of Arafat this gay myth is based on the dubious testimony of a much derided ex commie torturer who defected to the US and was keen to invent any rubbish to please his new friends. O and make a few bucks with his book of course. the torturer's name was Pacepa: "this book is utterly unbelievable and unconvincing. ... This is quite laughable. ... In addition to being highly implausible the book is poorly written. ... It is a (most likely) highly fictionalized and sanitized memoirs " http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895267462/qid=1067604602/sr=8-1/r ef=sr_8_1/102-6507415-0260920?v=glance&n=507846 You may even come across a video where Arafat is shown kissing a man profusely in public. Understanding Arab customs may help you here. To sum up, while I (see below) have two people that confess that Drudge is gay you have a bunch of unqualified rumours. How about going here: http://members.shaw.ca/libraryan/rainbowthreads/index.html. Here is a list of people who they believe are confirmed as gay. Arafat is not on the list. Drudge is. Hmmm. And for the record Judy, I made the statement that Matt Drudge WAS a homosexual based upon David Brook’s book “Blinded by the Right”. I also backed it up with some website articles but my main proof was the story that David Brook tells of Drudge (Brock is gay). I spelled this out very clearly for you. And also for the record, David Cohen confirmed to Daily News columnist George Rush that he did, in fact, date Drudge. So I have two people (which I believe is enough for your scriptural rule that all things must have at least two witnesses). A quick google search and you will realize that Drudge knows a lot about gay culture, admits to visiting gay bars and listens to music by gay musicians. So, am I making flimsy statements? NO. Your response was (and here I paraphrase – I will go back to the archive if you so wish), “Well even if it is true I don’t think we should be talking about another person’s sin. If it is true it will be shouted from the rooftops.” Now when it comes to someone you despise (Arafat), why wait for it to be shouted from the rooftops? Post your hate away! My point is that you are being hypocritical. Will you see it? No, but everyone else does. Anyways, I hope this is the last post we need to illustrate this. Issues and ideas are fine as long as they are linked to a person. Persons are what life is all about. Spending our time in issues and ideas apart from personhood gets us nowhere. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands jt: Jonathan once more pointing the finger with four of them pointing back at himself. You made the statement that Matt Drudge WAS homosexual based on some very flimsy suggestions by a website so scuzzy that I felt in need of a bath after I went there once. OTOH I qualified my statement even though Arafat's pederasty is an open secret and has been documented in books and articles for years. Jonathan how is it that you never want to discuss issues and ideas? Your focus seems to be always on the person? On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:52:07 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Often on this forum I feel like I am pointing out the obvious. Judy, Izzy posted a WorldNetDaily article dealing with ‘reported’ stories of Arafat being a homosexual. You then brought this into a conversation with Slade. You admit that it is something that is just ‘reported’, not neces
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Ahh Judge Judy J Another Judyean tactic: Never ever, ever admit one is wrong, especially when one is wrong. Fight til the death! So Arafat’s pederasty went from being something that is just ‘reportedly’ true to ‘an open secret’? Nice work Judy. Please tell me which books and articles these are. You make it sound like there is a lot of them. I await your response. You will find that there was one book, and that all the articles (mostly David Frum, and WND) all use the gossip mentioned in this book. Now here is your penance. Go and google up “Arafat is gay”. See what type of articles you get Judy. You will get the one that you already posted from www.365gay.com (do you visit there for all your gay community news?). You will see lots and lots of pages of rumours and if you search real nicely you may find the book by a Romanian intelligence officer who claims he has tapes. Of course these tapes have never been released. Go to www.amazon.com and look up this book. Whatever you think of Arafat this gay myth is based on the dubious testimony of a much derided ex commie torturer who defected to the US and was keen to invent any rubbish to please his new friends. O and make a few bucks with his book of course. the torturer's name was Pacepa: "this book is utterly unbelievable and unconvincing. ... This is quite laughable. ... In addition to being highly implausible the book is poorly written. ... It is a (most likely) highly fictionalized and sanitized memoirs " http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895267462/qid=1067604602/sr=8-1/r ef=sr_8_1/102-6507415-0260920?v=glance&n=507846 You may even come across a video where Arafat is shown kissing a man profusely in public. Understanding Arab customs may help you here. To sum up, while I (see below) have two people that confess that Drudge is gay you have a bunch of unqualified rumours. How about going here: http://members.shaw.ca/libraryan/rainbowthreads/index.html. Here is a list of people who they believe are confirmed as gay. Arafat is not on the list. Drudge is. Hmmm. And for the record Judy, I made the statement that Matt Drudge WAS a homosexual based upon David Brook’s book “Blinded by the Right”. I also backed it up with some website articles but my main proof was the story that David Brook tells of Drudge (Brock is gay). I spelled this out very clearly for you. And also for the record, David Cohen confirmed to Daily News columnist George Rush that he did, in fact, date Drudge. So I have two people (which I believe is enough for your scriptural rule that all things must have at least two witnesses). A quick google search and you will realize that Drudge knows a lot about gay culture, admits to visiting gay bars and listens to music by gay musicians. So, am I making flimsy statements? NO. Your response was (and here I paraphrase – I will go back to the archive if you so wish), “Well even if it is true I don’t think we should be talking about another person’s sin. If it is true it will be shouted from the rooftops.” Now when it comes to someone you despise (Arafat), why wait for it to be shouted from the rooftops? Post your hate away! My point is that you are being hypocritical. Will you see it? No, but everyone else does. Anyways, I hope this is the last post we need to illustrate this. Issues and ideas are fine as long as they are linked to a person. Persons are what life is all about. Spending our time in issues and ideas apart from personhood gets us nowhere. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands jt: Jonathan once more pointing the finger with four of them pointing back at himself. You made the statement that Matt Drudge WAS homosexual based on some very flimsy suggestions by a website so scuzzy that I felt in need of a bath after I went there once. OTOH I qualified my statement even though Arafat's pederasty is an open secret and has been documented in books and articles for years. Jonathan how is it that you never want to discuss issues and ideas? Your focus seems to be always on the person? On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:52:07 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Often on this forum I feel like I am pointing out the obvious. Judy, Izzy posted a WorldNetDaily article dealing with ‘reported’ stories of Arafat being a homosexual. You then brought this into a conversation with Slade. You admit that it is something that is just ‘reported’, not necessarily truth. A few weeks ago your gums began flapping when I posted information stating that Matt Drudge was ‘reportedly’ a homosexual. You thought that such reports should not be made public since they were not verified. The Straight Up Question: Are you ever aware of yo
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Actually, yet more proof that you have yet to read an actual post on TT in the last few months. I did imply that Judy was a hypocrite, not you. For you I implied that you were not speaking the truth when you stated that you never posted an article on Arafat’s sexual perversity. And of course your reasoning below tells much about you: when it is a conservative it is pointless gossip. When it is a non-Conservative it is evidence of evil. May I again suggest you take a break from the forum until you feel able to contribute in a meaningful way? Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 1:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Jonathan, let me ‘splain it to you: What you have been doing is implying that I am a hypocrite because I objected to your posting rumors that Drudge is a homosexual. I said it had nothing to do with anything regarding his website, and that was true. Then you (having been harboring a huge grudge) JUMPED at the opportunity to accuse me of being a hypocrite when I posted the articles about Arafat. It seems beyond your reasoning that allegations written by people who are listing the facts about an evil man might just include such information. The difference between that and nasty whispers about a man you don’t like because he is a Conservative are entirely different. One is information to support evidence that Arafat was an evil man. The other was pointless gossip. If that disturbs you then don’t keep bringing it up. And put your pointy finger away please. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Izzy, your first sentence asked me what my point was. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the fire. I would much rather call it an oversight than to call you a liar Izzy. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Jonathan, can’t you find anything else to nit pick about today? I’m sure you would much rather call me a liar, so live it up. Enjoy!!! Then take a chill pill. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Ahh the case of the moving points! Don’t worry. Sherlock Hughes is here to solve the case. The original point was that you stated you did not post any article that dwelt upon Arafat’s sexuality. In fact you posted two articles 3 days ago on Arafat. One of them was about rejoicing over his death, the other a list of two complaints against his character, the first complaint being pedophilia. You may want to claim that there were many traits of Arafat analyzed in the article you posted. There were of course only two: sexual perversity and Arab Nazism. The last portion is the author’s prediction as to what will come about as a result of Arafat’s death (and so far the author has been dead wrong – hope you don’t pay for his column). So you forgot about the first third of the article that you wanted TT participants to check out. We can call it an oversight, a deception, or just a plain lie. Let’s settle on oversight. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands And your point is? I didn’t even notice that part among the many articles I read that dwelt on it, but it is the opinion of the author (well documented as Judy pointed out.) MY point was that there are MANY good folks who rejoice that that wretched man is no longer present on earth to do his wretched deeds. I apologize for not remembering that pedophilia was mentioned as one of his many traits in that particular article. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands From the archives: RE: [TruthTalk] Who's Who of the Bible? ShieldsFamily Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:34:37 -0800 Check it out: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41320 about Arafat. Izzy Now Izzy please go and read this article. Bah, that would be work for you. I will quote it for you. I will highlight the portion of the article that you intentionally posted about his sexual perversity. It was in fact the very first point of the article. Apologies will be accepted. The death of Palestinianism Posted: November 6, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern Editor's note: Jack
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Izzy, your first sentence asked me what my point was. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the fire. I would much rather call it an oversight than to call you a liar Izzy. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Jonathan, can’t you find anything else to nit pick about today? I’m sure you would much rather call me a liar, so live it up. Enjoy!!! Then take a chill pill. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Ahh the case of the moving points! Don’t worry. Sherlock Hughes is here to solve the case. The original point was that you stated you did not post any article that dwelt upon Arafat’s sexuality. In fact you posted two articles 3 days ago on Arafat. One of them was about rejoicing over his death, the other a list of two complaints against his character, the first complaint being pedophilia. You may want to claim that there were many traits of Arafat analyzed in the article you posted. There were of course only two: sexual perversity and Arab Nazism. The last portion is the author’s prediction as to what will come about as a result of Arafat’s death (and so far the author has been dead wrong – hope you don’t pay for his column). So you forgot about the first third of the article that you wanted TT participants to check out. We can call it an oversight, a deception, or just a plain lie. Let’s settle on oversight. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands And your point is? I didn’t even notice that part among the many articles I read that dwelt on it, but it is the opinion of the author (well documented as Judy pointed out.) MY point was that there are MANY good folks who rejoice that that wretched man is no longer present on earth to do his wretched deeds. I apologize for not remembering that pedophilia was mentioned as one of his many traits in that particular article. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands From the archives: RE: [TruthTalk] Who's Who of the Bible? ShieldsFamily Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:34:37 -0800 Check it out: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41320 about Arafat. Izzy Now Izzy please go and read this article. Bah, that would be work for you. I will quote it for you. I will highlight the portion of the article that you intentionally posted about his sexual perversity. It was in fact the very first point of the article. Apologies will be accepted. The death of Palestinianism Posted: November 6, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern Editor's note: Jack Wheeler's unique intelligence site To the Point features concise, accurate analysis of geopolitical happening around the globe. This column and others like it are available on his site to members only. By Dr. Jack Wheeler © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com The Jewish Talmud makes the following observation: There is no beauty like Jerusalem, no wealth like Rome, no depravity like Arabia. This was written in the 3rd century A.D. – three hundred years before the Arabs embraced Muhammad's Islam. But neither the adoption of Islam nor all the intervening centuries since has decreased the addiction Arab men have to pederasty. Arab pederasty was personified in Yasser Arafat, one of the vilest human beings to ever infest the earth. During the Cold War, Arafat was a frequent guest of Romania's Communist dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, who would put him up in his palace in Bucharest. Always included in Arafat's retinue was a selection of young boys. What Arafat didn't know was that Ceaucescu's secret police, the Securitatae, would covertly film his bedroom escapades. The Israeli intel agency Mossad has copies. Ask any Mossad guy about them and he rolls over in a fit of laughter. Far worse than his pedophilic predilections, however, was Arafat's Arab Nazism. Yasser Arafat was the Hitler of Palestinian Arabs. Just as Hitler led the German people in a euphoric frenzy to their doom, so Arafat has done the same to his people. On his deathbed next to him lies the myth of Palestinianism. Never in history has there ever been a Palestinian people separate and distinct from other Arabs. The creator of the myth that the Arabs living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean were somehow different from the Arabs in say, Syria, was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini. He created the
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Ahh the case of the moving points! Don’t worry. Sherlock Hughes is here to solve the case. The original point was that you stated you did not post any article that dwelt upon Arafat’s sexuality. In fact you posted two articles 3 days ago on Arafat. One of them was about rejoicing over his death, the other a list of two complaints against his character, the first complaint being pedophilia. You may want to claim that there were many traits of Arafat analyzed in the article you posted. There were of course only two: sexual perversity and Arab Nazism. The last portion is the author’s prediction as to what will come about as a result of Arafat’s death (and so far the author has been dead wrong – hope you don’t pay for his column). So you forgot about the first third of the article that you wanted TT participants to check out. We can call it an oversight, a deception, or just a plain lie. Let’s settle on oversight. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands And your point is? I didn’t even notice that part among the many articles I read that dwelt on it, but it is the opinion of the author (well documented as Judy pointed out.) MY point was that there are MANY good folks who rejoice that that wretched man is no longer present on earth to do his wretched deeds. I apologize for not remembering that pedophilia was mentioned as one of his many traits in that particular article. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands From the archives: RE: [TruthTalk] Who's Who of the Bible? ShieldsFamily Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:34:37 -0800 Check it out: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41320 about Arafat. Izzy Now Izzy please go and read this article. Bah, that would be work for you. I will quote it for you. I will highlight the portion of the article that you intentionally posted about his sexual perversity. It was in fact the very first point of the article. Apologies will be accepted. The death of Palestinianism Posted: November 6, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern Editor's note: Jack Wheeler's unique intelligence site To the Point features concise, accurate analysis of geopolitical happening around the globe. This column and others like it are available on his site to members only. By Dr. Jack Wheeler © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com The Jewish Talmud makes the following observation: There is no beauty like Jerusalem, no wealth like Rome, no depravity like Arabia. This was written in the 3rd century A.D. – three hundred years before the Arabs embraced Muhammad's Islam. But neither the adoption of Islam nor all the intervening centuries since has decreased the addiction Arab men have to pederasty. Arab pederasty was personified in Yasser Arafat, one of the vilest human beings to ever infest the earth. During the Cold War, Arafat was a frequent guest of Romania's Communist dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, who would put him up in his palace in Bucharest. Always included in Arafat's retinue was a selection of young boys. What Arafat didn't know was that Ceaucescu's secret police, the Securitatae, would covertly film his bedroom escapades. The Israeli intel agency Mossad has copies. Ask any Mossad guy about them and he rolls over in a fit of laughter. Far worse than his pedophilic predilections, however, was Arafat's Arab Nazism. Yasser Arafat was the Hitler of Palestinian Arabs. Just as Hitler led the German people in a euphoric frenzy to their doom, so Arafat has done the same to his people. On his deathbed next to him lies the myth of Palestinianism. Never in history has there ever been a Palestinian people separate and distinct from other Arabs. The creator of the myth that the Arabs living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean were somehow different from the Arabs in say, Syria, was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini. He created the myth as a rationale for murdering Jews. Al-Husseini became Grand Mufti in 1921. How he did so, through the machinations of a homosexual British functionary, is a fascinating story told in "The English Godfather of Palestinian Terrorism" (To The Point, Dec. 16, 2003). He organized Arab rampages killing Jewish settlers throughout the 1920s, formed an alliance with the Nazi Party of Germany in the 1930s, met with Adolf Hitler in Berlin in November 1941 to encourage him to slaughter Jews in Europe so they couldn't escape to settle in Palestine, ordered Arab families to flee Israel upon independence so Arab armies could invade in 1948, founded the Palestine Liberation Organization, mentored his nephew Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qud
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Suzy. Wow. And I am accused of being sensitive on this board! No need to bow out. I just suggested to you that there was more to it than you at first thought. In other words, extend the grace you have given to David to John as well. Furthermore the archives of this list are located at http://www.mail-archive.com/truthtalk%40mail.innglory.org/index.html You do not need to take my side in this at all. You do need to be aware that there is more than one side. David (the owner of this list) often takes breaks - up to three or four months at a time. His not posting is not a result of any comments made on the board. David is a big boy and can easily take care of himself. And for the record I did not accuse you of being a devotee of the sainted David. Please read more carefully before you state such things. That discussion was with Lance and John, not me. JBH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Petersen Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Of course, I would not know the long history and I have no archives to look back on since I just signed up. What I saw as a newcomer is people arguing not discussing. And why were they arguing because they would not listen to the other when he claimed that He did not have an attitude. They are arguing because the other is trying to have them explain their point so that they could understand. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt because I did not take your side so to speak. If I have spoken in error I apologize. I, in no way, was out to be a "judge." I will bow out of this conversation since my newcomer input is not welcome. You may continue to agrue if you like. Let me just point out one thing before I leave this conversation. David has not posted since you accused him of being the sainted and that I was one of his devotees. Suzy Suzy --- Jonathan Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Suzy, > > I am not sure what your purpose is here. You have > been on the forum for > about 5 or 6 days and have jumped right into a > discussion that has a very > long history. A certain edge has built up during > this conversation they > have been having. Both of them have to communicate > through this edge. You > seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. > When Lance points this > out you jump on him and send some judgment his way. > I would suggest reading > some of the archives so that you may understand what > is happening from both > sides here. > > Questioning people's salvation has become a > recurring theme on this forum > for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a > nice and effective > tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. > Knowing that this has > been going on for months may help you understand > John's reaction to David > questioning John's grasp of the gospel. It is like > an iceberg; a raw edged > tip is above the water but much more lurks beneath. > > Jonathan > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Susan Petersen > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 4:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel > > That would be an invalid experiment because you are > excluding David's explanation of what he said. It > was > offensive to you after you read it. But after David > explained himself you rejected his explanation. Take > him at his word. Believe that he meant it as an > honest > question so that he could better understand where > you > were coming from. Iron sharpens iron. And I am sure > that hurts when it is done. I have felt it. > > Suzy > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/13/2004 7:45:51 AM Pacific > > Standard Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > Is it possible that you have never > > > >>>>truly heard the gospel yourself? > > > > > > > Suzy - let's try an experiment. Take that > > question, write it down exactly > > as it is written, tell you unsuspecting friends > that > > someone on an email > > group presented this question to you and ask them > > what they think it means? > > > > Wanna bet no one will come up with anything > similar > > to DM explanation? > > > > John > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release > Date: 11/9/2004 > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with > salt, that
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Read it again, Jon. I stated that I intentionally did not post any articles about his sexual perversity. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 8:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands Often on this forum I feel like I am pointing out the obvious. Judy, Izzy posted a WorldNetDaily article dealing with ‘reported’ stories of Arafat being a homosexual. You then brought this into a conversation with Slade. You admit that it is something that is just ‘reported’, not necessarily truth. A few weeks ago your gums began flapping when I posted information stating that Matt Drudge was ‘reportedly’ a homosexual. You thought that such reports should not be made public since they were not verified. The Straight Up Question: Are you ever aware of your own hypocrisy? JBH We are supposed to have our senses exercised so that we are able to discern between good and evil. Yassir Arafat is reportedly a homosexual terrorist who steals from his own people keeping them impoverished and bound; he respresents the epitomy of evil. REPORTEDLY Since you don't know, why did you bring it up? jt: I didn't bring it up Slade, Arafat has been the topic of discussion on this list all week, where have you been? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] 613 Commands
Often on this forum I feel like I am pointing out the obvious. Judy, Izzy posted a WorldNetDaily article dealing with ‘reported’ stories of Arafat being a homosexual. You then brought this into a conversation with Slade. You admit that it is something that is just ‘reported’, not necessarily truth. A few weeks ago your gums began flapping when I posted information stating that Matt Drudge was ‘reportedly’ a homosexual. You thought that such reports should not be made public since they were not verified. The Straight Up Question: Are you ever aware of your own hypocrisy? JBH We are supposed to have our senses exercised so that we are able to discern between good and evil. Yassir Arafat is reportedly a homosexual terrorist who steals from his own people keeping them impoverished and bound; he respresents the epitomy of evil. REPORTEDLY Since you don't know, why did you bring it up? jt: I didn't bring it up Slade, Arafat has been the topic of discussion on this list all week, where have you been? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Hi Suzy, I am not sure what your purpose is here. You have been on the forum for about 5 or 6 days and have jumped right into a discussion that has a very long history. A certain edge has built up during this conversation they have been having. Both of them have to communicate through this edge. You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. When Lance points this out you jump on him and send some judgment his way. I would suggest reading some of the archives so that you may understand what is happening from both sides here. Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. Knowing that this has been going on for months may help you understand John's reaction to David questioning John's grasp of the gospel. It is like an iceberg; a raw edged tip is above the water but much more lurks beneath. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Petersen Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 4:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel That would be an invalid experiment because you are excluding David's explanation of what he said. It was offensive to you after you read it. But after David explained himself you rejected his explanation. Take him at his word. Believe that he meant it as an honest question so that he could better understand where you were coming from. Iron sharpens iron. And I am sure that hurts when it is done. I have felt it. Suzy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 11/13/2004 7:45:51 AM Pacific > Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Is it possible that you have never > > truly heard the gospel yourself? > > > > Suzy - let's try an experiment. Take that > question, write it down exactly > as it is written, tell you unsuspecting friends that > someone on an email > group presented this question to you and ask them > what they think it means? > > Wanna bet no one will come up with anything similar > to DM explanation? > > John > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 -- "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] Arafat is gone
I have had to hold my anger in all day long. Slade you have done a wonderful and graceful job in answering Izzy and Judy today. When one relies on WorldnetDaily for news one tends to fall into error. Believing an article from WND (Weapons of News Destruction) as absolute truth is far fetched. If one cannot see the agenda WnD espouses one is blind, blind, blind. I see that my lesson of reading news from sources from both sides has fallen on deaf ears. Izzy, have you read any Palestinian articles on Arafat’s death? The New York Times article? How about an Israeli article? Or the BBC? Getting an informed opinion is worthwhile; spouting trash on this forum is not. The truth that has been absolutely shouting from my monitor today is that the two Jewish people on this forum, who actually have reason to hate Arafat, are the ones who have come to his defense. Meanwhile the two Christians who would never dare to judge another, who love when it makes them feel warm and fuzzy, tear him down. At a time when Slade, Kay, and Jeff could easily spout off many grievances against Arafat; here they are on this forum showing maturity, grace and God’s love. Slade, today you have earned a tremendous amount of respect from me. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Arafat is gone It is tragic that you would believe this pretense. He USED "his people" (there are no Palestinian people-they are Arabs like everyone around them) for his own greedy devices. He encouraged "his people" to strap bombs to themselves. He used "his people" to extort billions from gullible leaders to hide away in his own Swiss accounts while he kept "his people" in squalor and ignorance so he could breed hatred into them for the Jews. (Izzy) Now you're being a silly little girl :^). I never said there WAS a Palestinian People. The nation of Jordan was created for the ragtags no one else wanted. The "his people" consists of about 300,000 people ousted even from Jordan about the time of the Oslo I Peace Accord. I understand his greed. I already addressed the bomb strappings in a previous post without calling them bomb but you're just looking for a fight. The Swiss Accounts are something of a rumor. I tend to believe hey exist because the infrastructure was rarely improved as the money was to be used. Munitions were purchased and bartered but unless he was paying about 1500% more than he weapons were worth, he socked a bunch away, $68,000,000,000 [in development aid] I would bet. This rumor comes from internationally vended opinions and conjectures like the following: Allegations that Arafat misappropriated international funds emerged earlier this week when German public broadcaster ARD ran a report with documents showing that Arafat wired $5.1 million in September 2001 to a personal account at the Arab Bank in Cairo. The report said the millions may also have included international aid money. In light of the allegations, CDU's spokesman on Middle East policy, Ruprecht Polenz, called for the blocking of Arafat's account, "in which aid money is apparently sitting illegally." However, Polenz warned against taking blanket financial sanctions against the Palestinian Authority -- a move he said could strengthen opponents of the peace process, including the militant Hamas group. (Slade) I could go on and on, but I think it would fall upon deaf ears. Either you see the obvious truth or you fall for the scam. Tragic, indeed. (Izzy) I do not have deaf ears. I understand every one of your concern plus many others. It all goes back to the original source of the disagreement that causes Judy to be temporarily speechless... How are we to react to those who have an obvious humanity problem? Do we become like them and hate or do we take the higher road? Do we continue to hope that the Spirit of Redemption can push away the dark clouds of hate and the chains of blindness, or are we fall to the base elements of humanity and hope and pray for their destruction, both in this life and the life to come? The obvious truth is that we should hope all come to embrace the God of Israel. (Slade) --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
I have created a new litmus test for choosing Supreme Court Judges. Abortion is so passé. Instead I will place a bible and a picture of Jesus beside one another. I will then ask the applicant if they believe the word and the Word are equivalent. If they answer yes I will immediately brand them clinically insane and throw them into Abu Ghraib. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 3:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? Let me therefore be less obtuse. The Word of God is present within the Bible. The Bible will pass into non-existence while the Word of God will not. From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 07, 2004 15:15 Subject: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I DON'T HATE GEORGE W. BUSH. Jonathan can speak for himself. As to the other matter I'm confident that God is big enough to encompass both of our understandings. Let's press on to matters of greater import. jt: Have I misunderstood your feelings about George W Lance? I've certainly not heard any love coming his way from Canada To me this matter (God's Word) IS of the greatest import - If we have no unity as to what is and what is not God's Word then in what does our faith rest and grow since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" Where do we go to receive this Word? I have no problem with God's size or his power but I don't have the same confidence as you that he is willing to encompass everything that comes down the pike. I don't see that he has done this in the past and have no reason to believe that he has changed his modus operandi. [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hello? Is there a 'self-referential projectionist' in the house? Are you both (Judy & Linda) meaning to say that when I understand the dictionary's definition of hatred and/or when I understand the nature of your (Judy's & Linda's) hatred that I will then understand God's hatred of anyone or anything??? jt: All you need to understand is the meaning of the word Lance and then connect that word with what God says about a lot of activities and people who join themselves with this midset and these actions'abomination' does not mean love and peace; and abomination that causes desolation is a curse. If you are having a problem with Izzy's definition below - then just look at your and Jonathan's attitude toward our Commander in Chief. You both, along with many other intellectual types who see him as ignorant and dangerous hate him This does not mean that God hates him. However when God inspires those writing His Word to say something this strong. Well you have it your way - I'm going with him. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance wrote: PLEASE answer my query. Yes, Lance, I have experienced hatred. (Haven’t you?) Please see English definition below: (Since I have spoken with you on the phone I know that you DO speak English, if only with a quaint British-sounding accent. J ) Izzy Hatred Strong aversion; intense dislike; hate; an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil. Syn: Odium; ill will; enmity; hate; animosity; malevolence; rancor; malignity; detestation; loathing; abhorrence; repugnance; antipathy. hatred : the emotion of hate; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action [syn: hate] [ant: love] ha·tred Intense animosity or hostility. jt: Would the word "abomination" be fitting here? Look at how many times this word is used in scripture. God views many things as 'abomination' .. in Isaiah 66:17 the 'imagery' as Lance would call it is akin to eating a mouse. I would say an abomination is something that God hates... and those who join themselves to this perish along with it.. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
Jonathan’s useless post of the day: Ovaltine is created by Satan. That and meatloaf. My wife loves Ovaltine. The stench drives me insane. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 4:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? In Canada we extract 'blood' from turnips all the time. You're in Virginia though so, no such luck I'm afraid. Just cut me the pie then, tell me which teams are playing in the late games. Oh, ovaltine would be nice with that. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 07, 2004 16:00 Subject: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? [EMAIL PROTECTED]> I was going to say the following a couple of posts ago but, I hoped for a better outcome. Like our sainted Moderator on a similarly different topic I'm done speaking with you on this.Mayhap some kind soul will offer the needful clarification and, one of us will stand happily corrected. I do not mind if I'm that one. jt: But I'm not confused Lance. I know what I believe and if you or the "sainted Moderator" does not see it the same way then that's just how it is; only I would like to clarify how you and Slade do believe. Getting plain answers from you and he is like extracting blood from a turnip. [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Now, now Judy! Tsk tsk you little meanie1 That last comment was uncalled for. As I said re:hatred and, it's meaning, shall we just move on to other things? It could be that someone other than myself could make him/herself understood to you but, that's about the best I can do. jt: I haven't written anything mean Lance. I'm using Jonathan's own words with the hope that you will get my meaning - or rather his meaning because I still am not sure how one defines this Christ. As for moving on. Well someone else may have a different perspective than you. I understand a lot of other people. Right now I'm interested in your definition since you are claiming along with some others that God does not mean what he says ... Where did you want to move on to? From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> God and THE BIBLE do not mean the same as God and His Word. Not to me. jt: Then where do you find God's Word Lance? Do you see God's Word as some mystical and ethereal person who you call Christ? The one Jonathan has such a passion for? [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy: Just WHAT DISTINCTION DO YOU THINK I AM MAKING? Let's clear that part up then, move on. jt: I have no idea Lance, because you never explain. You give one word answers or sometimes one liners that are easy to misunderstand. Were you saying that you do believe that God and His Word are one when you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> God and the 'Scriptures' are not identical. Maybe it is time that you yield a little more in the way of explanation Lance... From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I do. I believe that you've forgotten that this conversation took place only recently so that I see no need to have it take place all over again. jt: You mean by this that you separate God and His Word? you see a division IOW? It matters not that you fail to understand the distinction. jt: Or is it you Lance who fail to understand the relational aspect of God and His Word? It matters only that you live what you believe the Scriptures to teach. As one possessing just a pinch of discernment, I'd say you do. [EMAIL PROTECTED]> God and the 'Scriptures' are not identical. jt: OH! Says who? How do you separate a man from his word Think about it, IYO is God schizophrenic?. From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Were we to apprehend 'the heart of God' through all of the Scriptures on all matters, God would still be more than our 'apprehension'. Why? God is God and we're us. jt: IOW the secret things belong to the Lord, but what has been revealed is for us and for our children? As to 'contradictions': they may well exist within (1) the Scriptures themselves (possible)? jt: No.. God does not contradict himself. (2) our 'readings' of them (certain).Logic, formally understood, cannot always be used as an arbiter of apparent contradictions. jt: What has logic got to do with anything? You really should let go of that Greek mindset Lance and allow your mind to be transformed by the washing of the Word. (John 3 'VS' Romans 9). Provisionally, I believe that John 3:16 more closely reflects the 'heart of God' than the 'reading' of Romans 9. As Beretta used
RE: [TruthTalk] Passion for the Christ?
A few people have asked me to explain what I mean by having passion for the Person of Jesus Christ. I am going to do something I rarely do on TruthTalk. Yup, I am going to quote scripture. I usually try to avoid doing this. I strive to make posts that are biblically based by picking up portions of certain verses or themes. When you read one of my serious posts I want bells to go off in your head as you read. I want you to hear scripture even when it is not expressly stated. That being said when it comes to attempting to explain what I mean about having passion for Jesus I have to rely on Scripture. Forgive me. I will add a few comments between each set of verses to point you to why the verses are important to me. Ephesians 1:33-5,9-10 How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ. Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him good pleasure. God's secret plan has now been revealed to us; it is a plan centered on Christ, designed long ago according to his good pleasure. And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ - everything in heaven and on earth. Ephesians 1 is perhaps my favourite chapter in the bible (John 15 being a close second). It is here that the Bible begins, not with creation but with God's purpose for us. In working out my passion for Christ I must align myself with God's purpose for my life. Ephesians tells me that God is into adoption, into having a family. It goes so far as to say that this is what God enjoys. This is my passion - knowing that I am the son that God has always wanted. John 17:1-3 1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. When Jesus speaks of eternal life it is in the context of 'knowing'. Knowing is an intimate relationship. This is partially my answer to John as to why the Newer Testament is not systematic theology. Systematic theology on its own is lifeless. It lacks the relational quality of a person. I believe (and Slade may correct me here if I am wrong) that the Hebrew mindset teaches us that God is present with His people not as something static but alive and relational. The difference between the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the other gods in the Older Testament is that our God speaks. Our God communes with us. Our God relates. In Jesus Christ we have Emanuel – God with us. It is because God became Jesus as a Person that we are able to relate to Him. To develop this relationship is our purpose, our working out of eternal life. This is my passion - to know Jesus Christ intimately. John 14:6-7 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Again the thrust of the passage revolves around 'knowing' Jesus. All things must be submitted to Jesus. This includes our theology. This is my passion - to know the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 12:1-2 1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. I often speak of two things: fixing our eyes on Jesus Christ and relying on the faith of Jesus Christ. Both are brought out in this passage. I look not upon myself but to Jesus. Because of Jesus' work on the cross He is the author and perfecter of my faith. This is my passion - to fix my eyes on the One whom endured the cross for me. Romans 9:31-39 31What can we say about all these things? Since God is for us, who can be against us? 32God did not keep His own Son for Himself but gave Him for us all. Then with His Son, will He not give us all things? 33Who can say anything against the people God has chosen? It is God Who says they are right with Himself. 34Who then can say we are guilty? It was Christ Jesus Who died. He was raised from the dead. He is on the right side of God praying to Him for us. 35Who can keep us away from th
RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau?
Spurgeon's commentary on Romans 9:13. Please note that me quoting it does not mean I agree with it :) WHY DID GOD LOVE JACOB AND HATE ESAU? I can tell you why God LOVED Jacob; IT IS SOVEREIGN GRACE! There was nothing in Jacob that could make God love him; there was everything about him that might have made God hate him as much as He did Esau, and a great deal more. But it was because God is infinitely gracious that He loved Jacob and because He is sovereign in His dispensation of His grace that He chose Jacob as an object of that love. Jacob was loved by God simply on the footing of FREE GRACE. WHY DID GOD HATE ESAU? Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this... because that man DESERVES to be hated. No reply but that can be true. If God deals severely with any person, it is because that person deserves all that he gets. Esau did not lose his birthright; he sold it. he sold it for a "mess of pottage." If any of you want to know what I preach, it is this: "I preach salvation all of grace and damnation all of sin. I give God the glory for every soul that is saved; and when I come to preach damnation, I say that damnation is of man." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? John, I await your reply. It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. Do you really think they are incompatible scriptures, and Believers must choose one or the other? Or are they BOTH true? You seem to not believe the first one, and wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? David's post: Izzy wrote: > Keep in mind that God loved Jacob > and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John wrote: > God loved them both - John 3:16. Maybe a good > word study on "hate" would help. John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? John says: When I get back to my library, I will deal with this issue. I will not answer the question posed above, however, because it implies a shallowness on my part that I do not care to debate. See you on the back side of the Rockies. John -- "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. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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] Did God hate or love Esau?
Izzy, do you think there is anything your own children could do to make you actually hate or loathe them? Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? John, I await your reply. It should be interesting to see if you think you have not "cancelled out" the meaning of Rom 9:13 with John 3:16. Do you really think they are incompatible scriptures, and Believers must choose one or the other? Or are they BOTH true? You seem to not believe the first one, and wish to explain away the meaning of "hate" with a word study. Maybe it really means "loved"? Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Did God hate or love Esau? David's post: Izzy wrote: > Keep in mind that God loved Jacob > and hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13) John wrote: > God loved them both - John 3:16. Maybe a good > word study on "hate" would help. John, do you reconcile these passages together in your mind, or do you just dismiss Romans 9:13 because you like reading John 3:16 better? John says: When I get back to my library, I will deal with this issue. I will not answer the question posed above, however, because it implies a shallowness on my part that I do not care to debate. See you on the back side of the Rockies. John -- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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] Re:The 'Beyond Within' and The Way of Jesus
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:08:53 -0500 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Those who are quick to judge others on this forum include every single member. Not a day goes by without some judging going on. The problem is, one states that they are not quick to judge but then does so on a repeated basis. jt: I believe you are referring to me above as the "one"; you lump what you refer to as "judging" all together and apparently don't see any difference between judging a person vs judging their teaching or doctrine. The former is never good for a professing believer and will cause lots of bad reaping .. whereas the latter is what the more honorable amongst us or good Bereans make a practice of doing. There is a difference Jonathan and it saddens me that you are not able to see it. Jonathan: I was referring to you as the ‘one’. I am afraid that you do not see that quite often your judgments are not about teaching or doctrine but are about the person. Your judgment on Lance today is a case in point. What you accused him of simply was not true. There was no bait and switch with Izzy. When I met with him tonight (we always meet on Friday nights) he again exclaimed surprise that the quote he gave was not received more warmly. It is one of his favourite passages from Willard, one that he has shared with a number of people. Each one has always thought the passage to be worthwhile. There was no judgment of Lance’s doctrine or teaching here by you, just a jump attack on Lance. Judy, each of us are professing believers and each of us judge people on TruthTalk all the time. We also partake in judging each others doctrine. One day we will stick to the latter. I at times attempt to be funny. I know, I know, I shouldn't do this but well I think I am funny. I have posted a few parodies (and have a new one in mind if I get time). Judy doesn't think I am funny. She has actually responded to my funny posts in a completely serious manner, missing the intended humor. She has taken seriously what I meant to be funny. We do this kind of thing all the time on TT. Email is a horrible way of communicating. jt: You are right about this, I don't look for parodies and you in particular have been offended so often that humor is probably the last thing I would be looking for in one of your messages or one of Bill Taylors. I do see it in John's quite often as it is obvious and most of the time the joke is on him. Humor very often is cultural. Jonathan: Here is a good example of how tone can be read into emails when the author doesn’t think it is present. John has also made a few posts about how easily offended I am. I would have to ask those close to me to see if this is true of my character. For a few weeks several months ago it was the ‘in’ thing on Truthtalk to put others down by highlighting their sensitivity. It even went so far as to call it an emasculated or feminine approach. This was used very well by a few people against Bill Taylor. From my point of view, I was hurt very much by the post you put out about me ‘dying with my CFS.’ I have been frustrated many times in what I perceive as attempts by you to halt dialogue. I am not sure how many times I have actually been offended though. Perhaps I am playing at semantics here. When I read one of your posts my first response is often a form of anger: frustration at you. Then I usually turn it inward upon myself. I blame myself for not communicating clearly what is on my heart. If you, or others, do not pick up on my passion for the Person of Jesus Christ I view that as my own failure to communicate. John, who does not always see eye to eye with me does see this passion in me. For that I am grateful. I look forward to the time that you, Izzy and Terry see this same passion. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] abortion info from a friend to TT =-- JD
Can't wait to see how David tries to spin these stats. JBH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] abortion info from a friend to TT =-- JD COVENANT NEWS -- SPECIAL REPORT! -- Tuesday, November 2, 2004 http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/ Editor's note: Steve Lefemine has done a fantastic job putting together a three-part (four page) report on federal taxpayer funded abortion. This report stands in stark contrast to anything the public is told by the compromised "pro-life" groups in Washington, D.C. This documentation is the best I have seen anywhere on the Internet. If you agree, then please send the links to this report to your email lists -- people will be shocked! Thank you--Jim Rudd - Bush's abortion funding - Bush's Title X funding - Medicaid abortions - Planned Parenthood funding Part 1a --- Press Release --- http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041011.htm Bush's abortion funding Part 1b --- Press Release --- http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041016.htm Bush's Title X funding Part 2 --- Press Release --- http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041028.htm - Medicaid abortions Bush's funding for selected Medicaid abortions Part 3 --- Press Release --- http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041031.htm - Planned Parenthood funding AOL Links: Part 1a: Bush's abortion funding Part 1b: Bush's Title X funding Part 2: Medicaid abortions Part 3: Planned Parenthood funding -- "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. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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] Arafat is Dying
Hi David, I seem to push a lot of your buttons. Either that or you just seem to have a lot of buttons to push. Your questions are quite loaded. You and I probably have different definitions of terrorism. Please supply yours so I can see the context you are working out of. I assume that you understand that government sponsored action done with terror is called state terrorism. Anytime an American made Apache helicopter shoots a missile into an apartment killing not just the intended target but also his family/friends we are talking terrorism. Israel participates in such actions on a regular basis. Do you actually need me to quote the numerous number of times this occurs? Perhaps they don't report them on Fox News. When Palestinians blow up 7 Israeli's it is called terrorism. When Israeli's blow up 7 Palestinians it is called government action against criminals. If you honestly wish to understand the plight of the Palestinians let me know and I will direct you to resources you may find helpful. When you begin to hear God's heartbeat for them you will know you are on the right track. As to the United States being a terrorist nation. This is a difficult question. There is no question that the United States has widely supported and aided terrorist states from Pol Pot to Suddam. This continues with their support for Israel today. Does this make the US a terrorist nation? According to the Bush Doctrine (either you are for us or you are against us and we reserve the right to strike you unilaterally) they would be considered a terrorist state. To me they are a state that depending on their national interest supports the regimes they can exert the most profit/stability from. That being said the United States was condemned by the World Court for terrorism for their role in Nicaragua. Invading Afghanistan had the legal backing of the United Nations. Iraq did not and the invasion was declared illegal by the head of the UN a few months ago. The initial invasion of Afghanistan if it had been carried out correctly would not have resulted in the human rights abuses that have occurred. Stopping the humanitarian aid so they could carpet bomb an already stone age country is inexcusable. Going after Bin Laden would be an example of what the US should have/be doing. This I give full support for. Well that is enough for now. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying Jonathan wrote: > Israel is just as much a terrorist nation as > Palestine (who lack nationhood). Why would you say such a thing? Can you name one act of terrorism that Israel has done? Do you understand the difference between government action against criminals and terrorism? Is the U.S. a terrorist nation because we invaded Afghanistan? Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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] Arafat is Dying
Hi David, When we say that Izzy is much better than Arafat we are saying that Izzy is better behaved than Arafat. We are not saying that Izzy is more deserving of love or the blood of Jesus Christ. Note the last part of my sentence: we need to realize that God loves both Izzy and Arafat. In that context we realize that God may be more pleased with Izzy than Arafat but His love for both of them is the same. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying Jonathan wrote: > It does take a rocket scientist to see that you are no > better than Arafat and to realize that God loves each > of you. I think Izzy is much better than Arafat. Why would you suggest otherwise? Peace be with you. David Miller. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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] Congratulations to all Bush supporters
Exactly John, Just because one is in a position of power does not mean that person is approved by God. Besides, in a democracy, for God to have a part in it would mean God would have to place a vote. From what I am hearing He wasn't on the list and was rejected. He filled out a provisional ballot but we don't expect it to be counted. JBH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Congratulations to all Bush supporters Don't you believe that God establishes nations and appoints those who rule them? Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1) Peace be with you. David Miller. The establishment of governments and positions of authority is different than the people who serve in those positions. Hitler was of Satan while the office he held was an appointment of God. JD -- "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. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 -- "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] Kerry and Abortion
I made some posts a number of weeks back on Kerry, Bush and abortion. The following article explains what I was attempting to say quite well. Pro-Life...Pro-Kerry? Why anti-abortion voters might want to take another look by Joshua Holland, Contributor 10.29.04 Sometimes in an election year if you peel the rhetoric away from the candidates' real-life policies, you can get some surprising results. Such is the case with abortion: if you are truly "pro-life," you should vote for Senator Kerry. Because the fact is that regardless of what's said in stump speeches, abortions in this country have skyrocketed under the Bush administration after a steep and steady decline during the Clinton years. That insight comes from Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, a Christian ethicist and statistician at the Fuller Theological Seminary who calls himself "consistently pro-life." He studied data from the 1990s and from the first three years of the Bush administration. During the 1990s, abortions in the United States — under a pro-choice president who said abortion should be safe, legal and rare — decreased by 17.4 percent. At the end of Clinton's second term, abortions stood at a 24-year low. The four states that had abortion data for all three years under Mr. Bush posted increases of 1.9, 3.2, 11.3 and 111 percent respectively (that whopping 111 percent rise was in Colorado). Data for only two years were available for another 12 states. Eight of them saw abortions increase by an average of 14.6 percent and four saw declines averaging just 4.3 percent. All told, if the trend of the 1990s had continued at the same rate under the Bush administration, Dr. Stassen estimates that 52,000 fewer abortions would have been performed in 2002. His analysis included the impact of the so-called 'partial birth' abortion ban which, despite its value as rhetorical red meat for certain constituents, restricted only a very small number of abortions. You may believe what you wish about the controversial method itself, but nobody denies that it was performed in less than one percent of all procedures. Dr. Stassen suggests that the rise in abortion is a result of economic pressures under President Bush: Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason. In the Bush presidency…average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed… In the 16 states [analyzed], there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises. Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency, abortion increases. Supply and demand So if you're pro-life, you might re-think that 'single-issue' vote. And while I don't disagree with Dr. Stassen, there is another, more direct causal relationship here: the Bush administration has extended its supply-side economic theories to reproductive health. They believe that constraining the ability of providers to supply abortion will somehow cause demand to drop. At the same time, their policies have attacked family planning, sex education and condom distribution programs. These efforts — based entirely on faith and not on sound public policy data – have caused the demand for abortion services to increase. According to a detailed report by Planned Parenthood, the administration has tried to strip contraceptive coverage from the Federal Employee Benefit Plan and limited family planning programs under Medicaid. President Bush blocked legislation that required insurance companies to cover contraceptives if they covered other prescription drugs; he's frozen funding for reproductive health programs and tried to shift federal programs from comprehensive family planning to promoting abstinence for unmarried adults of any age. The administration and its allies have attacked condom use, removed information about condoms from government Web sites, and attacked the birth control pill, IUDs and other forms of contraception as being equivalent to abortion. Now, you may believe as a matter of faith that limiting access to birth control and advocating abstinence will make people stop having sex. But an enormous amount of public policy research shows that comprehensive family planning is far more effective in decreasing unwanted pregnancies than abstinence-only programs. Decreasing unwanted pregnancies leads to fewer abortions – it's that simple. And if you think that voting for Mr. Bush will lead to the re-criminalization of abortion altogether — rendering that point moot – think again. Banning the procedure outright would lead to electoral disaster for the Republican Party. That may be why Ted Olsen, who as the administration's Solicitor General argues its positions be
RE: [TruthTalk] www.Bushvideo.com
The video Izzy should have posted: http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov Happy Halloween folks. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 6:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] www.Bushvideo.com Make that ALL of you guys. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 10:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] www.Bushvideo.com I was impressed with a profile I saw on Laura yesterday. He 'lucked out' as do so many of us guys. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 31, 2004 11:04 Subject: [TruthTalk] www.Bushvideo.com My husband and I heard this “George W. Bush: Faith in the Whitehouse” on the radio yesterday and ordered the DVD video because it was so inspiring. Click on www.Bushvideo.com and then on “Sample video” for a glimpse. Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] To Jonathan
Matt Drudge has openly admitted that he goes to gay bars. Would this be where you are having lunch? JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 6:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] To Jonathan If shopping, lunch and a movie count as a date, I guess you could say I’ve “dated” a lotta gals. J Iz He has admitted to dating guys but has denied having sex with them. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] To Jonathan
Hi Judy, Not sure why this matters to you so much. Regardless of his sexuality it is still the best conservative web site for gossip/news just as buzzflash is the best liberal site for gossip/news. There are many reports of Drudge’s homosexuality. He has admitted to dating guys but has denied having sex with them. This is similar to Michael Huffington stating that he is “homosexual but not gay.” My main source is David Brock’s Blinded by the Right. David Brock, a former conservative that took down Anita Hill and wrote a book on Hilary Clinton is gay. He claims that Drudge came onto him at a party once. I will spare you the details. Drudge denies it. I have read both of Brock’s books. You would like neither of them and although you would have championed him when he was a conservative I doubt you would support him now. To be fair it is more likely that Drudge is bisexual. Here is the disinfopedia link for the Drudge Report: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Matt_Drudge JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] To Jonathan Jonathan: The other day you called Matt Drudge a homosexual in one of your messages. Just where did you get your facts for this statement? I sure hope you were not quoting Buzzflash. I see they have an article about that which is choc full of innuendo and totally void of fact. It's just a cesspool of opinion and gossip with nothing to support most of what they say other than a desire to get back at Drudge for reporting things they don't like about their heroes. Judyt --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying
Slade I feel very thankful for your input on this. Learning how to read such passages is vital to us understanding who God is. You have much to teach us. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying I think you guys have been playing nicely so far. Only a bit of sand has been flung in each other's eyes. Do you mind if I step in and make a small comment? Look at Psalm 11:4-7 and its use of the English word hate. We look at hate as a "strong emotion of disdain and strong negative feelings (perhaps even evoking the desire for murder)." Can I ask you to transplant the English word oppose in place of hate? Do you think that fits God's personality better? I do. Now, look at Strong's/Young's and see if you agree on the English word oppose's usage. (Another way of looking at this word -- the Hebrew word sane -- is one who needs to change.) -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying 'Tweeking':But for the Grace of Godany one of us could... - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 29, 2004 11:10 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying Psalm 11:4 The LORD is in His (7) holy temple; the LORD'S (8) throne is in heaven; His (9) eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. 5 The LORD (10) tests the righteous and (11) the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates. 6 Upon the wicked He will (12) rain [1] snares; (13) Fire and brimstone and (14) burning wind will be the portion of (15) their cup. 7 For the LORD is (16) righteous, (17) He loves righteousness; The upright will (18) behold His face. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Bush and Christianity
No Judy. One article from Wikipedia is enough for any subject. You may have to venture into slanderous territory for the rest. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush and Christianity Judyt: Church membership does not make one a christian Jonathan and yes I do lack knowledge of Karl Rove why would I study him? I did a 'google' search as you suggested. Do you have anything factual rather than slanderous to add to Wikipedia below? On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:48:56 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, Bush is not a member of any church regardless of location. Your lack of knowledge of Karl Rove is rather astounding. No one currently in politics is considered to be dirtier. Do some google searches. You will be amazed at what you find out. I can guarantee you it won’t be Christian. Karl Rove From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Karl Rove (born December 25, 1950 in Denver, Colorado) is as of 2004 U.S. President George W. Bush's Senior Advisor and chief political strategist. Karl Rove began his political career with the College Republicans, which he chaired from 1973-1974. For the next few years, he worked in various Republican Party circles and assisted George H. W. Bush's 1980 presidential campaign. In 1981, Rove founded a direct mail consulting firm, Karl Rove & Co., based out of Austin, Texas. This firm's first clients included Republican Governor Bill Clements and Democratic Congressman Phil Gramm, who later became a Republican. In 1993, Rove began advising George W. Bush's gubernatorial campaign. He continued, however, to operate his consulting business until 1999, when he sold the firm to focus his efforts on Bush's bid for the presidency. After Bush became the 43rd president, Karl Rove became a Senior Advisor to the President. Rove is generally considered one of the most influential advisors in the Bush administration, and he has earned a reputation as an aggressive campaigner. [edit] History Rove is known for his political tactics when he was a protege of Donald Segretti, convicted Watergate conspirator. In 1970, he sneaked into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead. He printed fliers on the letterhead promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" and distributed the fliers at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank." [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm) [2] (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010305&c=2&s=dubose) [3] (http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/reich-r.html) In 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. There was no proof, and it was later alleged he had bugged his own phone for the media coverage the incident generated, but there was no proof of that, either, and no charges were ever filed. [4] (http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html) After dropping out of the University of Utah in 1971, Karl Rove started his political career as the executive director of the College Republican National Committee. He held this position until 1972 when he became the National Chairman of the College Republicans (1973-1974). As chairman, Rove had access to many powerful politicians and government officials during the Watergate scandal, including then CIA director George H. W. Bush. For the next few years, he worked in various Republican circles and assisted George H. W. Bush's 1980 presidential campaign. Rove's greatest claim to fame at the time was that he had introduced Bush to Lee Atwater. A signature tactic of Rove was to attack an opponent on the opponent's strongest issue. In 1993, according to the New York Times, John Ashcroft's campaign paid Karl Rove & Co. over $300,000 to aid his Senate race. In 1999, the George W. Bush campaign effort paid Karl Rove & Co. $2.5 million for July through December. According to Rove, "About 30 percent of that is postage." In early 2000, during the Republican primary, Senator John McCain led George W. Bush in the race for the Republican presidential nomination and won several state primaries. A push poll was allegedly launched against McCain: telemarketers were allegedly hired to place calls throughout South Carolina asking potential voters how they may react about a candidate, in this case McCain, had they known some negative, possibly untrue fact, about the candidate. In this particular instance, voters were asked “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John Mc
RE: [TruthTalk] Bush's Brain
As a fascinating study of alleged corruption and unchecked ambition, Bush's Brain is anything but balanced, but it's an important film that invites viewers to draw their own conclusions. That says it all. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Bush's Brain Judyt: Below is a review of the film by Amazon - and you recommend reading this? Offering no tangible proof? What is it based upon? Conjecture and slander to feed the 'hate Bush' part of the populace? Editorial Reviews Amazon.com A late bloomer among the rich harvest of political documentaries released in 2004, Bush's Brain is potently revealing yet maddeningly pedestrian in its attack on Karl Rove, the powerful presidential advisor nicknamed "Bush's Brain" for serving in effect as co-president in the George W. Bush administration. Slapped together for the sake of an expedient pre-election release, the film makes a convincing case (while offering no tangible proof) that Rove conducts ruthlessly effective Republican campaigns on the belief that "the ends justify the means." Based on the book by James C. Moore and James Slater (both featured prominently in abundant talking-head interviews), the film lacks the coherent structure that would've made it truly effective, assumes considerable foreknowledge on the part of the viewer, and regrettably includes a tear-jerking, non sequitur digression about the grieving family of a beloved Marine who was killed in Iraq. But the film's shattering allegations and heartbreaking testimonies suggest, in no uncertain terms, that Rove is pulling the Presidential strings, remaining virtually untouchable while winning elections by any means necessary. As a fascinating study of alleged corruption and unchecked ambition, Bush's Brain is anything but balanced, but it's an important film that invites viewers to draw their own conclusions. --Jeff Shannon --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Bush and Christianity
Izzy, Judging me is getting to be a full time hobby for you. Note how I prefaced the article: I do not agree with everything written in it. I have made it clear that I do believe that W is a Christian. I have also made it clear that this does not put him outside the realm of honest critique. The article has generated 9 replies so far. This is a discussion forum. I do believe that W’s professed faith is not impacting his policies in the way I would expect it to. I find it strange that he doesn’t even attend church. I find it strange that he doesn’t actually come out and say he is a Christian. I find it strange that he believes that to pray to Allah is the same as praying to his God. You and Judy question my Christianity on a constant basis. To have one of your heroes questioned seems to be beyond the pale for you. Now if Kerry wins on Tuesday night (and of course I am praying he does to the same God that you are praying he doesn’t) we will see if you two are all hot air. The actual hypocrisy would be that if the article began “Clinton is no devout evangelical. In fact, he may not be a Christian at all” you would be smiling and hanging it up on your fridge. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Bush and Christianity Jonathan: Coming from you, this is the height of hypocrisy. (Remember your theology?) Izzy Bush is no devout evangelical. In fact, he may not be a Christian at all. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Bush and Christianity
Judy, Bush is not a member of any church regardless of location. Your lack of knowledge of Karl Rove is rather astounding. No one currently in politics is considered to be dirtier. Do some google searches. You will be amazed at what you find out. I can guarantee you it won’t be Christian. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush and Christianity It's the title of a documentary. It suggests that Bush's brain is in reality Karl Rove. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 29, 2004 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush and Christianity Judyt: What's wrong with Bush's Brain? Doesn't he meet your intellectual standards Lance? On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:52:33 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Please see/hear 'Bush's Brain'. One or two more points from this piece of 'trash journalism' Question: Why would George W. have a home church in Dallas TX? When he was the Governor he lived in Austin TX and his Ranch was then and is now in Crawford TX - not anywhere near Dallas. And where would she get the idea that John Wesley abandoned a fortune to live righteously with the poor? (like being poor makes one righteous and holy or something). John Wesley never had a fortune. He was the son of a preacher and one of 18 children. But God met his needs and he wasn't too poor to travel from the UK to Georgia. Jesus told one person with a problem to sell everything and this lady has made it a rule for all "real Christians" - Those who don't conform are then branded "Dalmations" who only keep the spots they like. How ludicrous, as if the President is supposed to be some preacher or something. Why put him down for being smart enough to make a fortune? I don't believe her charge that Karl Rove spread filthy stories about Ann Richards either, these would have had the George W's OK but they are ugly and mean spirited and I don't see that kind of behavior now. I remember Ann Richards mocking him when he ran for her job, calling him "the shrub" and saying he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but I've yet to see George W. ridicule anyone's person. Their voting record and their job performance - yes. She writes: If he is anything at all, Bush is nominally Methodist, the denomination of his home church in Dallas. John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, emphasized an emotional “warming of the heart” to Christ as fundamental to conversion. (That self-help ethos is evident in the resident’s “compassionate conservatism.”) But Wesley was equal part freedom fighter: As a pastor in 17th-century England, he was barred from the pulpit for crusading against the abhorrent evils of slavery. Wesley died a poor man, his life a testament to Christ’s exhortation of charity in the Gospel of Mark: “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” Bush, on the other hand, is no ascetic firebrand. The president has a net worth of nearly $20 million, and there is no indication that he is on the brink of abandoning his fortune to live righteously with the poor. And unlike Wesley, Bush has never compromised his political standing to challenge the conservative status quo -- regardless of its Christian righteousness. The president is, safe to say, a “Dalmatian” Methodist. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Hebrew Mindset
For the record Jonathan has not stated that there is anything wrong with the mind of the Spirit, or the mind of the Father. I did pick up the Pauline notion of having the mind of Christ. In the future shall I mention all three in order to avoid being misunderstood? Judy I wrote the post below 6 minutes before you responded. I put a lot of work into it. Please do me the respect of taking more than 6 minutes before shooting back your next attack. Digest what I say. Wrestle with it. I gave you respect by honestly answering your initial question to me even when I knew you were doing it only to attempt to catch me in a bind. I saw it as something that may interest other members of the forum as well as a chance for me to put my thoughts on paper. I would suggest that your comparison of the spirit, soul, and body with Father, Son and Spirit is on very shaky ground. One is a triumvirate, the other Trinity. One refers to different aspects, the other to Persons. One refers to that which is mutually exclusive and divisible, the other to mutual indwelling and unity. It is an attempt (first done by St Augustine) to make a model of the Trinity based upon humanity instead of basing it on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I believe that it is a useful but mostly harmful analogy. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Hebrew Mindset Who is separating them Jonathan and what is wrong with the "mind of the Spirit?" It is the Godhead isn't it and God is one. My point is that a man with spirit, soul, and body is just as much one as the Godhead with no part complete without the others. Judyt On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:17:19 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Judy, I believe that one must hold to a proper concept of the Trinity. This includes the One and the Three. I do not believe that the stress on the Hebrew mind for God being One nullifies the Newer Testament stress on Three, nor do I believe that the Three is absent in the Older Testament or the One in the Newer. I believe that the concept of Perichoresis (mutual indwelling) handles this quite well. It is seeing the Trinity in relational instead of static terms that is most beneficial (and Hebrew). I believe that whenever we give primacy to one side over the other we tend to stray into error. I also am not saying that Hebrew thought is perfect. However, I believe that Israel was the womb of the incarnation and that God supplied Israel with the mental furniture needed to begin to fathom God and His purpose. I believe this was fulfilled in the Godman Jesus Christ. It is because the Hebrew mindset was continually being refined in an agonizing relationship with its Creator that it is so valuable. By studying this mindset the Spirit can refine our own minds into that of Christ’s. I would suggest that the same process needed to break into the Hebrew mind is needed in our own Greek/Western mindsets. We must also be careful in how we describe the Greek mind. It is easy to begin by generalizing and saying that anything that is parsed or broken up is a result of Greek philosophy. That would not be a truthful presumption. It may be fair in some situations and not in others. In the case above I do not believe it to be fair as it is not an accurate representation of Trinitarian thought. If I said that God was primarily Jesus and only moderately Father and Spirit then I would be outside the bounds of Hebrew thought and into Greek. For the record the complete (mutually exclusive) separation of Father, Son, and Spirit (tritheism) is a result of Greek philosophy. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin Jonathan, do you also see the Godhead as "broken up" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Where's the Hebrew mind's wholeness there? On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:30:03 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Slade I anxiously await your response to this one. I am very grateful to a few people in my life (including Lance) who have pointed out how important the Hebrew mindset is to understanding Christianity. The concept of wholeness in the human instead of the broken up spirit, soul, body, mind of greek philosophy is a breath of fresh air. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin I'll get to this when I have more time (like on Shabbat, perhaps).
RE: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying
Terry your jabs at me have been increasing lately. Perhaps I have been more irreverent than usual or else there is something going on in your own heart. I believe invoking mercy for Arafat would be exactly what Jesus Christ would do. It is easy to attempt to convey my theology (God-talk) in one sentence saying everybody is automatically saved. It of course does not do justice to the many times I have explained my position. I do believe that everyone is included in Jesus Christ. I also have made it quite clear that this can be rejected. To confuse you I then go on to state that those who chose to reject Jesus Christ are still included. I use the example of how my son may say to me, “Daddy, I hate you, I reject you, I disown you and will have nothing to do with you.” I may reply “Ok, but you will always be my son.” My son can never get rid of his sonship because it is something I have bestowed on him regardless of whether he accepts or rejects it. In the same way if God chooses to bestow grace upon us the grace stands regardless of our acceptance or rejection. I believe that the grace of Jesus Christ is that scandalous. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying Jonathan Hughes wrote: Aye I read this today as well and had some of the same thoughts. He is definitely quite sick if not close to death. May God have mercy on him. JBH Evidently you have not been listening to Jonathan. No need for mercy. Everybody is automatically saved. Terry --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004
[TruthTalk] The Hebrew Mindset
Hi Judy, I believe that one must hold to a proper concept of the Trinity. This includes the One and the Three. I do not believe that the stress on the Hebrew mind for God being One nullifies the Newer Testament stress on Three, nor do I believe that the Three is absent in the Older Testament or the One in the Newer. I believe that the concept of Perichoresis (mutual indwelling) handles this quite well. It is seeing the Trinity in relational instead of static terms that is most beneficial (and Hebrew). I believe that whenever we give primacy to one side over the other we tend to stray into error. I also am not saying that Hebrew thought is perfect. However, I believe that Israel was the womb of the incarnation and that God supplied Israel with the mental furniture needed to begin to fathom God and His purpose. I believe this was fulfilled in the Godman Jesus Christ. It is because the Hebrew mindset was continually being refined in an agonizing relationship with its Creator that it is so valuable. By studying this mindset the Spirit can refine our own minds into that of Christ’s. I would suggest that the same process needed to break into the Hebrew mind is needed in our own Greek/Western mindsets. We must also be careful in how we describe the Greek mind. It is easy to begin by generalizing and saying that anything that is parsed or broken up is a result of Greek philosophy. That would not be a truthful presumption. It may be fair in some situations and not in others. In the case above I do not believe it to be fair as it is not an accurate representation of Trinitarian thought. If I said that God was primarily Jesus and only moderately Father and Spirit then I would be outside the bounds of Hebrew thought and into Greek. For the record the complete (mutually exclusive) separation of Father, Son, and Spirit (tritheism) is a result of Greek philosophy. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin Jonathan, do you also see the Godhead as "broken up" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Where's the Hebrew mind's wholeness there? On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:30:03 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Slade I anxiously await your response to this one. I am very grateful to a few people in my life (including Lance) who have pointed out how important the Hebrew mindset is to understanding Christianity. The concept of wholeness in the human instead of the broken up spirit, soul, body, mind of greek philosophy is a breath of fresh air. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin I'll get to this when I have more time (like on Shabbat, perhaps). -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 20.37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:34:21 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judyt: To me this makes about as much sense as the right brain, left brain, New Age mumbo jumbo. Slade says: Interesting perspective. That's how I receive Spirit vs. Flesh arguments. Judyt: I can't imagine why Slade; the reality of the fact that man is a spirit being is all through scripture ie: Zech 12:1 "I formed the spirit of man within him" Hebrews 12:9 contrasts the fathers of the flesh with the Father of Spirits. Romans 8:1,2 contrasts walking after the flesh with walking after the Spirit Galatians 5:19-23 contrasts fruit of the flesh as opposed to fruit of the Spirit How does one explain these scriptures and the ones I haven't listed when in denial? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying
Aye I read this today as well and had some of the same thoughts. He is definitely quite sick if not close to death. May God have mercy on him. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Arafat is Dying According to David Dolan, Yasar Arafat is in critical condition. I know most people hate him, and I will admit to hating the actions he's approved against the Israeli people (not all people are combatants). Whether this report is true or false, perhaps God's mercy can be extended to a man who seems to have shown so little in his lifetime. If God's mercy has been shown to me, surely Arafat is likewise "deserving." -- slade --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin
Slade I anxiously await your response to this one. I am very grateful to a few people in my life (including Lance) who have pointed out how important the Hebrew mindset is to understanding Christianity. The concept of wholeness in the human instead of the broken up spirit, soul, body, mind of greek philosophy is a breath of fresh air. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin I'll get to this when I have more time (like on Shabbat, perhaps). -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 20.37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:34:21 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judyt: To me this makes about as much sense as the right brain, left brain, New Age mumbo jumbo. Slade says: Interesting perspective. That's how I receive Spirit vs. Flesh arguments. Judyt: I can't imagine why Slade; the reality of the fact that man is a spirit being is all through scripture ie: Zech 12:1 "I formed the spirit of man within him" Hebrews 12:9 contrasts the fathers of the flesh with the Father of Spirits. Romans 8:1,2 contrasts walking after the flesh with walking after the Spirit Galatians 5:19-23 contrasts fruit of the flesh as opposed to fruit of the Spirit How does one explain these scriptures and the ones I haven't listed when in denial? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin
I would like to see these threads. I look forward to listening. I do have one book on the subject, “Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek” by Thorleif Boman. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin I think that would be fun. It's always interesting to get differing opinions as long as there's some logical reason behind it. The "just because" and "'cuz God told me so" answers, however, I can do without. In the next few days, with your permission, I'll start a few threads. Is that ok? - slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 25 October, 2004 22.31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin In a message dated 10/25/2004 6:48:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In other words, if a passage is written within a certain worldview or mindset, it should be interpreted within that same worldview or mindset. In many ways, the Eastern mindset is opposite to the western mindset. Now, this is something I think is extremely important. A good discussion contrasting Western thought process and Eastern or Oriental would be most beneficial, I think. John --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004
RE: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin?
Spontaneous Combustion is a good one. I have a bottle in my fridge right now. Hot sauces are a bit of a hobby for me. For flavour I prefer the Original Death Sauce (After Death for more heat) and Scorned Woman. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? Here's a few websites you can go to. Please excuse any website name that you may find offensive. This is not my intent. http://www.asskickin.com/product0.html (5.95 + 3.95 S&H) -- buy 2 or more for best shipping http://www.pyropepper.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc? ($5.95 + 8.51 S&H) http://store.goingape.com/ak-sc201.html http://www.ghosttowntexas.com/shop/food/hotsauces/SpontaneousCombustion.htm http://ironq.com/spontaneous_combustion_hot_sauce_.html http://www.firebreath.com/s.nl/c.ACCT89406/sc.2/category.9/it.A/id.364/.f Is that enough places on the 'Net? (P.S. buy a few for me, ok?) -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 16.44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? My first experience with White Castle Sliders was in Detroit one cold dark night. I had just got into town and had to wait 'til morning to make a delivery. As tired as I was I didn't feel like driving back out to a truckstop to eat and saw a White Castle about 2 blocks away. So I locked my truck and walked down there and had the juicest (Greasyist)little burgers I had ever tasted. They sure were good, but as you said they move through so fast! I think the only that goes through the digestive system faster is Chinese! An hour after gorging yourself, you are hungry again! I'll still take sliders over the In and Out burgers Though! I do so like to torture my colin, just pass the hot sauce, BTW, does anyone know where I can order a hot sauce called "Spontaneous Combustion"? It's one of my favorites and I cannot find it anymore. Jeff - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 16:31 Subject: RE: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? I intentionally avoided Sliders when I was in Wisconsin and Illinois. The name alone suggests it's so greasy the intestinal tract cannot hold it in. Does it move through so fast one can eat it again (The modern-day version of the vomitorium... only different)? -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 16.02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? I'll have about a half dozen SLIDERS instead! Jeff - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:50 Subject: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? The Double-Double with Cheese has got to be the finest 'burger around. -- slade It is wrong for you guys to talk about these burgers when most of us can't get them where we live ROTFL At least Kay said she'd try to look for the recipe. And just "What is sin anyway?" Laura Gluttony for too many In and Out Burgers? Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004
RE: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin?
http://www.pyropepper.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=1898MD They say this is the hottest in existence right now. Boy do I want it. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? Here's a few websites you can go to. Please excuse any website name that you may find offensive. This is not my intent. http://www.asskickin.com/product0.html (5.95 + 3.95 S&H) -- buy 2 or more for best shipping http://www.pyropepper.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc? ($5.95 + 8.51 S&H) http://store.goingape.com/ak-sc201.html http://www.ghosttowntexas.com/shop/food/hotsauces/SpontaneousCombustion.htm http://ironq.com/spontaneous_combustion_hot_sauce_.html http://www.firebreath.com/s.nl/c.ACCT89406/sc.2/category.9/it.A/id.364/.f Is that enough places on the 'Net? (P.S. buy a few for me, ok?) -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 16.44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? My first experience with White Castle Sliders was in Detroit one cold dark night. I had just got into town and had to wait 'til morning to make a delivery. As tired as I was I didn't feel like driving back out to a truckstop to eat and saw a White Castle about 2 blocks away. So I locked my truck and walked down there and had the juicest (Greasyist)little burgers I had ever tasted. They sure were good, but as you said they move through so fast! I think the only that goes through the digestive system faster is Chinese! An hour after gorging yourself, you are hungry again! I'll still take sliders over the In and Out burgers Though! I do so like to torture my colin, just pass the hot sauce, BTW, does anyone know where I can order a hot sauce called "Spontaneous Combustion"? It's one of my favorites and I cannot find it anymore. Jeff - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 16:31 Subject: RE: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? I intentionally avoided Sliders when I was in Wisconsin and Illinois. The name alone suggests it's so greasy the intestinal tract cannot hold it in. Does it move through so fast one can eat it again (The modern-day version of the vomitorium... only different)? -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 16.02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? I'll have about a half dozen SLIDERS instead! Jeff - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:50 Subject: For Linda: FW: For Linda: FW: [TruthTalk] What is sin? The Double-Double with Cheese has got to be the finest 'burger around. -- slade It is wrong for you guys to talk about these burgers when most of us can't get them where we live ROTFL At least Kay said she'd try to look for the recipe. And just "What is sin anyway?" Laura Gluttony for too many In and Out Burgers? Izzy --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/2004
