Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)
Apostacizing a possibility?
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 04, 2006 09:03
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd
2 cd)
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 11:12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness
(jd 2 cd)
cd: Yes-that is why God will hold these sins
to their accountably.To think otherwise would make the God we knowa
mean Spirit who punishes his creation for doing something that they could
not help
"Now all things are of God, who has
reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry
of reconciliation;that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the
world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has
committed to us the word of reconciliation." -- 2Corinthians
5.18-19
cd: Yes he removed transgressions from those whom came to
receive Christ but what about those who return to sin or those who reject
Christ-are you saying they are accountable for doing something they cannot
help but to do?
cd: Bill tell me how do you receive the below verse to mean?
It is in English and the words are connected to meaning behind the
words-what do you think those connections illustrate?
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have
known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy
commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to
the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow
that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 7:47
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness
(jd 2 cd)
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/3/2006 8:17:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Rightousness (jd 2 cd)
IFF even one (1) was "able to keep God's
commandments before Christ went up to heaven and sent the Holy Ghost to
help us in this area (Acts)" then, might we rightly assume that EVERYONE
WAS ABLE?
cd: Yes-that is why God will hold these
sins to their accountably.To think otherwise would make the God we
knowa mean Spirit who punishes his creation for doing something
that they could not help but to do-and He would then not be God.At least
not a God I would want to serve.
- Original Message -
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 03, 2006
08:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Rightousness (jd 2 cd)
I may have misread you, Dean, but you seem
to say above that John the Baptist's "parents were post
ascension." The "ascension" took place after the resurrection of
Jesus, when he left this earth to sit at his Father's right
hand. Zacharias and Elizabeth were both quite old when JB was
born and had probably even diedprior to the ascension. I
am a little confused as to what you mean when you write that
they were post-ascension. Elsewhere you state that "Christ has a
flesh body and ate fish even after the accention." I assume you
meant to say "ascension" here and if so, I was not aware of any
Scripture which speaks of Jesus eating
fishsincehaving left to be with his
Father.Could you please try to help me better understand
what you're saying.
-
cd: Respectfully Bill -I am speaking of post-ascension as
a way of pointing out that Zac. and Elizabeth were able to keep
God's commandments before Christ went up to heaven and sent the
Holy Ghost to help us in this area (Acts 2)-so we have no excuse
for not doing so.This is my attempt to strengthen the
brethren.
-
By the way, do you (and
Judy) believe that JB's parents were born of "sinful
flesh"?
-
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
I'm fully aware that a case can made for that which you, DM, Iz and, Judy, in differing fashions, claim to have achieved in your lives, Dean.IFO believe this "case" to be abstracted from the realities of life...even/especially..the life of any believer. Your concluding comment concerning 'patience' makes my point for me. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 04, 2006 09:30 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/4/2006 9:06:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Respectfully and, may it please the court...maturation this side of ...eschatological consummation...amen! Sinlessness this side of eschatological consummation..DANGER WILL SMITH (if you 'google' this phrase you'll see 'heretical ideals...appropriately- cd: Lance 1 John 2-12-17 Deals with three levels of Christian maturely and the last two mentioned overcoming the wicked one-which means not listening to the one who would lead us into sin-post salvation.. I would put if up but don't feel anyone would even read it much lees seek to understand it. So I will simply moderate for a while as my impatience seems to be getting the better of me-May God bless you and give me more patience. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 04, 2006 08:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/4/2006 7:52:49 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Another thing . this argument "God will not ask of us what we cannot do" is something you need to rethink. Have you never said "Come on , walk to Daddy" ?? Have you never received instruction (Dean, do this and then do that) that you could not [at first] do? to imagine that we can be perfect AS GOD IS -- well, that is to miss the point of goals and the process of maturity. Further, if God told us nothing that we cannot (or will not) do, there is no need for sin offering other than what exists in the Old Law. cd: The need for the sin offerings wasn't because the people could not do as instructed-it is a way of removing the quarrel we had with God by the sin- which is mingled with innocent blood that God loves to make the offering more pleasing. We can keep from sin John as we are not renewed in weakness by in power.If we couldn't do so there wouldn't be any punishment for that sin. The would be not need to put off the old man which is sin-that is who the old man is John-sin. He is a very ugly demon followingus around tugging at you arm to draw you away and the only way to leave God is to prefer sin more than God.You are overlook a whole lot of scripture to cling to error-respectfully- so for now keep you error for in it is weakness as you seem to love it so much John-the shame is you- as a Pastor -are teaching this to others and will not receive correction in this area-which produces weak Christians-who will never understand why if is important to keep from sin... Know that we adjust our understanding to the work of now not t he other way around Bro. May God bless you as I feel I have gone as far as the Spirit would have me go in this area for now-my prayers are for you John. jd - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/3/2006 12:02:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation S, the moment of "conversion" presents one with the full ability to be sinless? Please tell me you are kidding!! cd: Christ must have thought so as He clearly states go and sin no more.Again why would God/Lord instruct us to do something that was impossible to do-and tells them what will happen if they do so.Respectfully John this is illogical as you are clearly saying that there is no difference between the lost and the
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
e organ but I will send
himITanyway-then they can have conflict
over mywordandthey canfight it
outwhileI sit back on my throneand laugh at
those dumb fools. I don't think so John:-)
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David:
It was your predecessors that
lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that
barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your
predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still
imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the
celebratedfounding fathers, who helped form the
bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'.
Do consider the larger context within which that which you
do is seen by those you seek to 'help',
David..
From:
David Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 02,
2006 09:32
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
JD wrote:
Sodomite is a name we call people just
as "nigger" is a word that
offends.
I don't see it that way, John. Sodomite is a
Biblical word, and it points toa particular sexual
practice. Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the
Biblicalcity which brought upon them God's judgment
for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual
behavior. The homosexual agenda has hijacked the
English language by adopting the word "Gay" for
themselves. If they can incorrectly use the word
gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind
people exactly what we are talking about.
Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you
thatI rarely use the word "sodomite." In fact,
I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used
the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about
that.I usually talk about the evil of sodomy,
and I often talk about the University's Official
Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or
Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and
Fornication.
Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me
concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking
that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals
are born the way the are. Do you think homosexuals
need special protection from prejudicejust
asotherminority ethnic groups would? Are
you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality
and adultery?
David
Miller.
[TruthTalk] Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, John Wesley et al
Good but, not God.
Re: [TruthTalk] An open letter to Dean -- jd
Amen! Good to have you as moderator. Take a deep breath and think 'ecumenical'! Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 04, 2006 12:51 Subject: [TruthTalk] An open letter to Dean -- jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean, let me encourage you to continue. If you need to take a break, then that is what you must do. I want to express my appreciation to you for the change in attitude that has been obvious, now, for the past several months. I doubt any on this forum is not aware of your change of pace in these discussions. I have been a member of TT for two years, now. The past couple of weeks (at least) has produced perhaps the best continuing discussion on TT. It has been great. David has been more consistent in the graciousness of his writings -- at times as profound as any on this forum. Bill has taken more time to contribute as well. My writings are more of a distraction, I fear, but I actually write for my children !! They have asked for a collection of what I think -- not that it is anything special other than I am their ol man --- so I write for them. I had a little scare a couple of weeks ago that has renewed my commitment to leaving them a hard copy legacy , if you will The value of the current discussion has been as much your doing as any on this forum. What is more important, Dean, an attitude that encourages continued sharing or a well written abstract about some theological high point? I give credit to the former. And you , sir, are the head of the class on this one in my opinion and without debated. We each hope that the other will come to agree with us. But surely there is other benefit to our thinking and studying and praying and maneuvering and writing than the friendly persuasion of the opponent !! Maybe something personal ? I hope. Definitely true for me. Just a note from your friendly counselor: impatience is always -- ALWAYS - a breach of the principle expressed in I Cor 13:5 which reads love does not seek its own . From an utilitarian point of view, I do not see a more useful scripture as a pastoral counselor. When I get impatient with you - or Judy or whoever -- it is due to pe rsonal failure in this regard . I have placed my own concerns ahead of all other considerations. Did you notice that this phrase is open-ended? Love does not seek its own -- its own what !!?? Ah, and such is the brilliance of the expressed thought. Love does not seek its own (fill in the blank.) Love does not seek its own passion, its own opinion, its own judgments, its own good .. and I could go on and on, of course. Are you aware that this passage is addressed to the church? The love passage is not directed to private relationships (marriage and the like). Nope !! Rather, it is Pauls inspired advice as pertains to conflict resolution within the church and among brethren. It is the code of conduct for such as TT -- whether I am a good example of same or not !! Your attitude shift has encourage me , and perhaps other , to go and do likewise. Thanks, jd
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Innocent until - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 04, 2006 13:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you.DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others.I don't have the timenor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is merely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say.If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken...implying you are too arrogantly righteous to need to prove your own words. Then you simply think you can put the burden of proof...if you want to prove your innocence...on the accused! Is that really how you want TTers to view your self perceived image of fairness, Dean???Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: You have only been a moderator one day, Deanand already you are posting lies. If you will post my comments that suggest that I supported this right to harm others, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. Until then, it is obvious to me that you are making stuff up to cast me in a dim light and diminish what I have truly said.DAVEH: OKThen I will expect you to not falsely accuse without evidence to support you accusation. cd: If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken.I don't have the timenor the inclination to do so now-but if you want to prove your innocence then use these keywords-"DaveH" and "Fighting words"- search a couple of years back should bring results-balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
Morality/Immorality are = in the eyes of God! Importuning the "immoral" AND focusing on particular sins indicates a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the nature of the Triune God and His Triune Gospel! DM along with at least one of his offspring seem to be so actively engaged. NOW is the occasion for sadness. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 19:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Thanks for this post. You do understand my concern? Socially speaking., the gay fellows can be most disgusting -- beyond what I care to describe.And, most in their community defend their outragious public behavior -- which was rather surprising to me when I realized this. There is no doubt in my mind that Christ encountered a number of these individuals in His personal ministry - certanly the evangleists and Apostles did in their sojourn. It is treated with the same regard as most other sins , in the scriptures. For example -- it is on the same list as "back talking one's parents."The first item on that list is homosexuality, of course.The point I see from this consideration is not that homosexuality is no worse than disobedience to your parents - rather that disobedience to your parents is just as bad as homosexuality !! Sin is sin and it is terrible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: Sodomite is a name we call people just as "nigger" is a word that offends. I don't see it that way, John. Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points toa particular sexual practice. Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblicalcity which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior. The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves. If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about. Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you thatI rarely use the word "sodomite." In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication. Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are. Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudicejust asotherminority ethnic groups would? Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery? David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] An Idiot
Please define "idiot". It may be that believers may be "believers/idiots". - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 21:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] An Idiot Pat Robertson is on Fox, right now. he's an idiot !! By the time he gets his foot out of mouth, I will be in the next life !! jd
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 21:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' It may be "dualism," but it is notsymetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. The flesh of Christ began an embryo and matured from there, the whole time fully united to the one who spoke the universe into existence and held it together by the power of his will. In other words, the relationship between God and man in the person of Jesus Christ was asymetrical, the will ofGod constantly converting the will of man. By the way, "dualism" in itself is not a bad word. Like so many other things, it is only certain types of dualism which are problematic. Bill - Original Message - From: Judith H Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wholly good and ATST wholly evil is dualism JD - judyt On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:47:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And now that Christ has reconciled all things unto Himself -- what do we now suppose?? Further, Gal 3:26-27 speaks of us being into Christ. Jesus speaks of You in me, I in you and they in us. Kiss off dualism. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..same with male female--'made He them' says Moses On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:53 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (acc to Moses, God Man are originally family, not categorically polar opposites) On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:01:29 -0500 Judith H Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wholly God and wholly man is a dualis[m] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
I'd be interested to know if DM's "coming together one's" exude an ethos that's welcoming to the very ones he and Christine have centered out for censure.?? Please don't presume to read my mind on this one. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 03, 2006 07:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation But don't you see that if we regard gluttony and homosexuality the same, we cannot order anyone out of our churches? Where would we be if sinners were actually allowed and even encouraged to attend? We have been to told to preach to the world. Leave them, then, in the world - not in the church. Pastor Smithson Bishop of Love Minister of Understanding And Judge of the Bastards -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Morality/Immorality are = in the eyes of God! Importuning the "immoral" AND focusing on particular sins indicates a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the nature of the Triune God and His Triune Gospel! DM along with at least one of his offspring seem to be so actively engaged. NOW is the occasion for sadness. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 19:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Thanks for this post. You do understand my concern? Socially speaking., the gay fellows can be most disgusting -- beyond what I care to describe.And, most in their community defend their outragious public behavior -- which was rather surprising to me when I realized this. There is no doubt in my mind that Christ encountered a number of these individuals in His personal ministry - certanly the evangleists and Apostles did in their sojourn. It is treated with the same regard as most other sins , in the scriptures. For example -- it is on the same list as "back talking one's parents."The first item on that list is homosexuality, of course.The point I see from this consideration is not that homosexuality is no worse than disobedience to your parents - rather that disobedience to your parents is just as bad as homosexuality !! Sin is sin and it is terrible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: Sodomite is a name we call people just as "nigger" is a word that offends. I don't see it that way, John. Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points toa particular sexual practice. Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblicalcity which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior. The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves. If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about. Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you thatI rarely use the word "sodomite." In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication. Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are. Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudicejust asotherminority ethnic groups would? Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery? David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)
IFF even one (1) was "able to keep God's commandments before Christ went up to heaven and sent the Holy Ghost to help us in this area (Acts)" then, might we rightly assume that EVERYONE WAS ABLE? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 03, 2006 08:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Rightousness (jd 2 cd) I may have misread you, Dean, but you seem to say above that John the Baptist's "parents were post ascension." The "ascension" took place after the resurrection of Jesus, when he left this earth to sit at his Father's right hand. Zacharias and Elizabeth were both quite old when JB was born and had probably even diedprior to the ascension. I am a little confused as to what you mean when you write that they were post-ascension. Elsewhere you state that "Christ has a flesh body and ate fish even after the accention." I assume you meant to say "ascension" here and if so, I was not aware of any Scripture which speaks of Jesus eating fishsincehaving left to be with his Father.Could you please try to help me better understand what you're saying. - cd: Respectfully Bill -I am speaking of post-ascension as a way of pointing out that Zac. and Elizabeth were able to keep God's commandments before Christ went up to heaven and sent the Holy Ghost to help us in this area (Acts 2)-so we have no excuse for not doing so.This is my attempt to strengthen the brethren. - By the way, do you (and Judy) believe that JB's parents were born of "sinful flesh"? - cd: Yes I do Bill and I addressed this in another post to John today. I evidently missed that one, Dean.Sorry about that. I was wondering if you also consider Zacharius and Elizabeth to have been been righteous and blameless before God. --- cd: Yes I do Bill- but their born into sin from the flesh saw need for their salvation. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
[TruthTalk] Body, soul, spirit David Miller
The writings of Nee Penn-Lewis come to mind on this. Have you read either/both? It'd appear that you have developed a theology somewhat similar to their's. Comments?
Fw: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: February 03, 2006 15:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wow. This was great. Amen and amen. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:38 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 03, 2006 08:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' In physics, duality is present when two different models actually turn out to be equivalent. In alchemy, duality is a dynamic principle of opposing or complementary elements or spirits. The term dualism can refer to a variety of doctrines, mainly in theology and philosophy, each involving the purported existence of two substances ( often opposites) of some kind. These opposites can be, among other things, opposing forces, or opposing ontological or epistemic categories. Bill has been the one who has said themost concerning dualism , to my memory. And I have come to accept much of what has been written. In counseling, the habit of sin (activity) is chemically enhanced in the brain. Your long term preformance becomes blueprinted, if you will , into your psyche. That is why an action or activity can become addictive -- actually it is whypatteren activity WILL become "addictive." I was quite the dualist before TT and Bill Taylor. I am not one now. the "old man" of the bible is, to me, those thing I do or think that are harmful to me (the bible being an excellent guide in this regard, if not the final word.) But my life is not defined by these falings. The same principles of the pysche work in regard to repeated "good" activity. What we call "addiction" (IMO) is the attachment of whatever repeated activity to my personhood via this chemical process.It is the oneness of my person that speaks (for me) against the idea of dualism. The old man is alway there - he is that character we do not wish to be - for whatever reason. Paul tells us in Romans 6:11 to CONSIDER yourselves to be dead to sin but alive in Christ. If the old man were actually dead -- as in dead and gone -- I would not have to consider anything. I would be alive in Christ with no choices to make. Although I look forward to the freedom of not having to make choices anymore, such is not the case now. Eph 4 :20-24 reminds us of the continuing presence of the old man along with the new. I am what I have done coupled with what God sees me to be in Christ. The result is my person. And not every influence in my life is either "good" or "bad" in a moral sense. In addition to these, there is my level of intelligence, the intensity of my passions, my ability to overcome fear -- and so I say "what dualism?!!"n bsp; I am not just good and bad. When it comes to matters of personhood, I am not a dualist.I am not the combination of only two natures.The probelm of sin is huge and complicated. And so it is that God contributes much more than His Spirit. Heroin addicts have a terrible history of recovery (less than 3%) Isthe addictgoing to hell because his pysche is locked into that which cannot be overcome (at least for the time being)? Well, when we cannot access the Spirit's influence, grace abounds and the blessing of the crossreveals itself -- saving man when he does not deserve to be saved. In Hebrews we are told that judgment day will include a consideration of the "intentions of the heart." And what is the greater struggle? To be clean and sober, free from addiction and a child of God or to be addicted beyond control, facing the Devil's work as he tries to persuade you to give up -- using your failur es to convince you that you are lost and without hope? Which is the greater battle? And who deserve the "credit" for trying? He who isvictor or he who will not let go of the hope within in spite of his failings -- believing that God is bigger than all that tries to bring him down. Both are noteworthy, of course, but the man of problems is not to be denied. Chrsit came not for the righteous but to seek and save the lost. It is before his master that he stands or falls and he will be made to stand !!! jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It may be helpful to distinguish between duality and dualism. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 21:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' It may be "dualism," but it is notsymetrical, the evil having equal power and equal authority to that of the good. Th
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Reply to my reply to my reply to..oh wellPERHAPS David Miller does NOT understand! L - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 03, 2006 15:59 Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: February 03, 2006 15:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Wow. This was great. Amen and amen. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:38 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 03, 2006 08:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' In physics, duality is present when two different models actually turn out to be equivalent. In alchemy, duality is a dynamic principle of opposing or complementary elements or spirits. The term dualism can refer to a variety of doctrines, mainly in theology and philosophy, each involving the purported existence of two substances ( often opposites) of some kind. These opposites can be, among other things, opposing forces, or opposing ontological or epistemic categories. Bill has been the one who has said themost concerning dualism , to my memory. And I have come to accept much of what has been written. In counseling, the habit of sin (activity) is chemically enhanced in the brain. Your long term preformance becomes blueprinted, if you will , into your psyche. That is why an action or activity can become addictive -- actually it is whypatteren activity WILL become "addictive." I was quite the dualist before TT and Bill Taylor. I am not one now. the "old man" of the bible is, to me, those thing I do or think that are harmful to me (the bible being an excellent guide in this regard, if not the final word.) But my life is not defined by these falings. The same principles of the pysche work in regard to repeated "good" activity. What we call "addiction" (IMO) is the attachment of whatever repeated activity to my personhood via this chemical process.It is the oneness of my person that speaks (for me) against the idea of dualism. The old man is alway there - he is that character we do not wish to be - for whatever reason. Paul tells us in Romans 6:11 to CONSIDER yourselves to be dead to sin but alive in Christ. If the old man were actually dead -- as in dead and gone -- I would not have to consider anything. I would be alive in Christ with no choices to make. Although I look forward to the freedom of not having to make choices anymore, such is not the case now. Eph 4 :20-24 reminds us of the continuing presence of the old man along with the new. I am what I have done coupled with what God sees me to be in Christ. The result is my person. And not every influence in my life is either "good" or "bad" in a moral sense. In addition to these, there is my level of intelligence, the intensity of my passions, my ability to overcome fear -- and so I say "what dualism?!!"n bsp; I am not just good and bad. When it comes to matters of personhood, I am not a dualist.I am not the combination of only two natures.The probelm of sin is huge and complicated. And so it is that God contributes much more than His Spirit. Heroin addicts have a terrible history of recovery (less than 3%) Isthe addictgoing to hell because his pysche is locked into that which cannot be overcome (at least for the time being)? Well, when we cannot access the Spirit's influence, grace abounds and the blessing of the crossreveals itself -- saving man when he does not deserve to be saved. In Hebrews we are told that judgment day will include a consideration of the "intentions of the heart." And what is the greater struggle? To be clean and sober, free from addiction and a child of God or to be addicted beyond control, facing the Devil's work as he tries to persuade you to give up -- using your failur es to convince you that you are lost and without hope? Which is the greater battle? And who deserve the "credit" for trying? He who isvictor or he who will not let go of the hope within in spite of his failings -- believing that God is bigger than all that tries to bring him down. Both are noteworthy, of course, but the man of problems is not to be denied. Chrsit came not for the righteous but to seek and save the lost. It is before his master that he stands or falls and he will be made to stand !!! jd -- Origin
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
David: It was your predecessors that lynched the aforementioned. It was your predecessors that barred the aforementioned entry to churches. It was your predecessors who generated the plantation mentality still imbued in the aforementioned. It was your predecessors, the celebratedfounding fathers, who helped form the bigotry that still characterizes your nation of 'believers'. Do consider the larger context within which that which you do is seen by those you seek to 'help', David. From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 09:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation JD wrote: Sodomite is a name we call people just as "nigger" is a word that offends. I don't see it that way, John. Sodomite is a Biblical word, and it points toa particular sexual practice. Furthermore, it reminds the hearer of the Biblicalcity which brought upon them God's judgment for accepting and engaging this kind of sexual behavior. The homosexual agenda has hijacked the English language by adopting the word "Gay" for themselves. If they can incorrectly use the word gay, then I can correctly use the word sodomite to remind people exactly what we are talking about. Nevertheless, I ought to make it clear to you thatI rarely use the word "sodomite." In fact, I suspect that it is possible that I may have never used the word sodomite, but I could be wrong about that.I usually talk about the evil of sodomy, and I often talk about the University's Official Department of Sodomy or State Sanctioned Sodomy or Government Funding for the Promotion of Sodomy and Fornication. Your choice of a racial slur for comparison causes me concern that you have perhaps been deceived into thinking that homosexuality is a racial issue, and that homosexuals are born the way the are. Do you think homosexuals need special protection from prejudicejust asotherminority ethnic groups would? Are you in agreement with the legalization of homosexuality and adultery? David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
'feminism'?? Don't get me started! The role of the church (read DM as a contributor) is both anit-christ and anti-gospel. You, DM, ought to repent for that which you've done, do and will no doubt continue to do in your unbiblical stance on this. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 02, 2006 09:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation John, wait and see if there is no lasting good. You seem to forget that I have done these fights before and changed laws for the good. I'm working to do the same here. I sacrifice myself and my daughter for the good of every Bible believer, even those like you who do not appreciate the sacrifice. One thing you ought to understand. I am not trying to get people to join my Christian club. I am advancing Christ's kingdom. Part of that is knocking down the dominion of Satan. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. I am part of that church. This sign is one of the most ingenious signs I think I have ever made for campus ministry. It provokes dialogue and debate like few others that I have made. It has opened the mind of believers to realize the true homosexual agenda as they hear the homosexuals present objecting only to the word Beware on the sign. It has allowed for a dialogue against feminism, explaining that we ought to be tolerant of those who have a message of warning. The other side of the sign also has been effective in making it clear that homosexuality is something we should prevent, not something we should encourage and promote. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Let me add this thought: you will accomplish no lasting good with the strategy you have revealed in this post. And, you may have put your daughter in harm's way. Your sign is so very wrong if, in fact, you are trying to bring people to Christ rather than simply exposing them for the.. whatever. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You do understand how I and many others might think you answer rather curious. to speak one on one with different terminology than a speech offtered to a congregation of individuals (hmm congregation of INDIVIDUALS) is a surprising consideration for one who preaches with the hope of convincing as many as possible (now and in the future) to give their lives to a God who has already given His life for them. My manner of speech in a closed session would have a very predicatable effect on those in attendance. Ditto for the larger congregation. Nigger is used by blacks. You get the point ? Sodomite is a name we call people just as nigger is a word that offends. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, John, that won't work. You have to learn to shift gears to understand street preaching. I would never speak this way one on one. It only shuts the person down. In street preaching, however, we can redirect our speech toward others. We can bring out what the homosexuals are really about. Take my banner, for example, that says, Beware Queer University. When people complain about the banner being offensive, I ask them to please tell me what is offensive about it. If it is the word Queer I explain that the word Queer is used by the homosexuals themselves, and that part of their agenda is to make this word common place like the word Gay is now used for a homosexual man. I sometimes ask a homosexual standing there, sir, please tell everyone her e if I am speaking the truth. If I took off the word Beware from this sign, and it only said, Queer University, and I rallied people, telling them that this University should be known to all as Queer Univeristy, and all the Queers should come here to this University, wouldn't you like that? Every time the homosexual will agree and say, yes, that would be great. The point is that most people do not understand that this is the homosexual agenda. Many of us do not want the University to become Queer University. We only want it to be a place where homosexuals can attend and find help to stop sexual behavior that God condemns. So my point is that a counseling session is conducted much differently than a street preaching session. If you can't shift gears, stick with counseling and let others do the street preaching. They will be more effective at it than you would be. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Should I try your approach in my next
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
Correction: "morally righteous" should read "morally SELF righteous". To Dean:If Debbie has nothing to teach you (and David who condemned her) through her rather perceptive post then, you, along with TT's assembled pharisees (Judy, DM, DH) had just better brighten the (street) corner where you are. (interesting to see DM include Mormons alongside Baptists yesterday). - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 31, 2006 19:30 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation I love it. We can blasphemy the very nature of Christ but that is fine. Surely I am not the only one who actually saw the point of Debbie's discussion. As I remember, she was trying to make a point about the use of the word "sodomite." And her presentation worked - except for one thing; she forgot she was addressing the morally righteous. The shock and awe you all experienced with the use of the f'in word is the same dismay many feel when the word sodomite is used. She brought out that passionate discontent rather brilliantly. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd:L The "F" word was enough for me.Debbie has nothing to teach me Lance. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/31/2006 3:11:15 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation - Original Message ----- From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 31, 2006 13:26 Subject: Interesting observation Somewhat ironically, given Judy's remarks about Roman Catholicism and the orthodox view of Jesus' humanity, here is a quote from Victor's [edited] lecture: Veneration of Mary was another feature of the religion of the common people. As noted already, their predominant image of Jesus was as judge coming to punish the wicked; his saving and intercessory work had receded far into the background. But every human being has an unappeasable hunger for a saviour, a redeemer, an intercessor, and this role became Mary's: she was felt to be gentle and pitying and human, softer and kinder than Jesus. The reformers were to address this matter at length, magnifying our Lords humanity especially as our sin-bearer and intercessor. It is when the humanity of Jesus is allowed to recede, so that his effectual sin-bearing oneness with all humankind is lost to sight and his intercession on behalf of his people disappears, that Mary is handed the role of intercessor or co-redemptrix, for someone must be summoned to furnish human solidarity with sinners. Indeed, the heart of Reformation theology is Christology. While the reformers denounced medieval Marianism frontally as idolatry, they did a great deal to dismantle it simply by their understanding of Jesus as the one who not only mediates God to humankind, but savingly represents and therein mediates all humankind to God. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006
[TruthTalk] Philosophy, Understanding Christology
IFO would respond NO! IFO would supplement DM's implicit assertion along with his obvious change of heart vis a vis conduct.Christology matters as little as 'homo/lesbo lifestyle' matters; no more no less.I now begin to see why DM believes Mormons to be on an equal footing with any other 'believer'. I am quite astounded to witness the breadth of DM's apprehension of the love of Chrst. I even find myself reproved thereby. Boy DM, have I been misreading you! - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 07:19 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' So are you saying that salvation is based upon philosophy and understanding? A person must properly understand and profess the right Christology in order to be saved? David M. p.s. I don't put down you, John. You confuse a put-down of ideas with who you are. Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is what you are about. But be that as it may. What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you] teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in one's walk with God. There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill, Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy, that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. Had he attached his comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle of truth nor would itbe a timeless moment of revelation. If you choose to disagree, I am not interested. David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that "we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or prophetess.Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter. But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all. Youare correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine, associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on. And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really are .. Dean's post of this morning. He is a good guy - a Christian. But he is toying with the doctrine that is unique to the Christian faith. No other faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh, Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And, if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same heritage at all and your teaching is toopposed. If you believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !! jd -- Original message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD you are too full of your own importance and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep - plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish things as the next person. I would
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
Through God alone may God be known. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 06:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation The only knowledge of Christ available to us is that which comes by way of the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme Christ in this age is to blaspheme his Spirit. "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God." Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Perceptive post Lance? Give me a break! You ppl are so into opinions ... Morality is a thing to be desired so why malign this also by adding the "self" like you know something that nobody else is aware of. You've not even heard the first one of them preaching on the street have you? To JD .. blaspheming the name of Jesus is not what gets you in trouble, it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit that is the unpardonable sin and you don't appear to have a clue about Him. Judyt-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
DM recants and, we all so appreciate it! He tells us that "I think Judy's perceptions come from her framework of understanding the Bible." I KNOW that DM has already put himself on an equal footing with JT'interpretation-wise' thus, the implicit recantation on DM's part. Amen David! - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 07:40 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation I don't hear Judy saying that a spirit taught her that the flesh of Jesus was not genetically related to his ancestors. If she did, then we could readily judge that this spirit is not of God and direct her to reject this spirit. I think Judy's perceptions come from her framework of understanding the Bible. Furthermore, her lack of knowledge about the physical nature of Jesus does not rise to the level of blasphemy. On the contrary, it is her sense of protecting Christ from anything that even sounds blasphemous that causes her to respond the way she does. It is kind of like if you like somebody so much and think the world of them, and your assumption of good parents is that they would never raise their voice to their children and somebody tells them that this person yelled at their child. Your first response might be, no way, you are mistaken, he would never do that. Not until that person comes and says, "yes, I did raise my voice" would you realize that you were wrong. Then you would have some rethinking to do about whether or not yelling at children is wrong in every situation. Many of us know from the Bible that Jesus went into the Temple several times and kicked out the people who were buying and sellinganimals for their sacrifices commanded by Torah. Most people in our culture are ignorant of the Bible and when this is described to them, they immediately deny that it could be true. Their perception of Jesus is someone who is so meek and loving that he never offended anyone, and for someone to characterize him as acting this way, well, it seems outright blasphemous. I think this also somewhat describes Judy's motivation for not acknowledging that Jesus's body wasphysically descended from David. David M. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation The only knowledge of Christ available to us is that which comes by way of the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme Christ in this age is to blaspheme his Spirit. "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God." Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Perceptive post Lance? Give me a break! You ppl are so into opinions ... Morality is a thing to be desired so why malign this also by adding the "self" like you know something that nobody else is aware of. You've not even heard the first one of them preaching on the street have you? To JD .. blaspheming the name of Jesus is not what gets you in trouble, it is blaspheming the Holy Spirit that is the unpardonable sin and you don't appear to have a clue about Him. Judyt-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Is 'jeez' on a par with the 'F' word, DM? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 07:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/31/2006 10:23:26 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? you wantthe what?? cd: To understand the Bible better than I do now-jeez G.. On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are denying that Christ was God in the flesh !! - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/31/2006 12:37:43 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean, I want the deeper level of understanding..
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
'Home is the sailor, home from the sea. Yikes DM! Ya gonna trot this one out again? Don't kick a dead horse, DM. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' David writes I affirm [Judy's] position about Christ's Divinity as much as I affirm Bill's position about his humanity. I'm just patient that she will, in time, understand. Bill wrote: David, I know you did not intend by your statement to imply that I affirm only Christ's humanity while denying his Divinity. ... I too affirm Christ's Divinity, and by that I mean his full and complete and absolute Deity, replete with purity and holiness which could only be of divine derivation. Yes, Bill, I do understand that. I hope you understand what Judy's concern is. How can Jesus be holy if he had a sinful nature within his physical body? It is a good question . It pertains to whether or not we can be holy while living in this life. Most people believe that we will always sin because we have a physical body with a sinful nature. Many have been so indoctrinated with this concept that they do not believe they will be completely victorious over sin until Jesus returns and we receive a new body. How can a person who accepts this premise truly recognize the full holiness and purity of Jesus if we are saying that he also had a body like our own? It is a difficult concept. The false assumptions must be dealt with first. In Judy, there are some additional concepts about the biological and spiritual contributions of fathers and mothers that also muddies the discourse. These must be dealt with one by one before she would be able to understand certain passages in the right way. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
IFO DO NOT HATE JUDY nor anyone else on TT. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 08:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/31/2006 11:20:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? David, Actually I am saying the same as Dean. I believe Jesus walked about in a flesh and blood body. I just don't accept that it was a fallen (under the Adamic curse) flesh and blood body which is what I am understanding the rest of you to be saying. Dean is the only one whose Christology I can relate to. cd: I have found her to be saying the same as I am also-but her words get twisted by others alot and their have been attempts to lead her into mistakes and confusion because they hate her and want to defeat her more than they want truth-similar to what happens to you on campus-I know that because they do the same to me one campus and will do so soon here.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
DM says of Judy, 'your interpretation'! As he placed himself alongside JT on the 'inspiration/illumination' thingy then, once again I commend him for recanting. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 08:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote: David, I don't see the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary as divinely inspired ideas; both are the thinking of religious spirits through men of the cloth. I'm glad to hear that, but history tells us that those who embrace the premise which you have will be forced eventually either to abandon their premise or accept the logical consequence of their thinking that Mary herself had to be different too. Judy wrote: Also I believe that going on and on about David's genitals is equally bizarre. What is too difficult for God? Does he have to do things the same way every time? We must start with the premise that God did it this way because the Bible teaches us that he did it this way. Then we seek to understand it. As we do, we come to an understanding of justice and God's legal system that helps us understand it. We also come to understand the full extent of salvation, and how salvation culminated at the cross, but was not entirely accomplised only by what happened at the cross. There is so much more that could be said, but not enough time to say it all. My point is only that God could do it in many different ways, but we are taught in Scripture how he did it. We should accept that. Judy wrote: Scripture says Jesus was born of the woman and he was born pure and holy - without the taint of the first Adam. This is what I believe. The last part, without the taint of the first Adam, is not in the Bible. It is your interpretation of the word holy. My perspective is that the taint of the first Adam being resident within the physical body does not automatically make a person unholy. Else, how could John the Baptist be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb? As for the rest of what you said, I agree. Jesus was born of the woman and was pure and holy. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
"STUDY HELPS??" Hello? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 08:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean, I don't think you are misreading; and I do think we are saying the same thing which is that Jesus did not come into this world with a heathen sin nature. Sin is not just an action. When we receive an occult thought and accept it as ours we are on our way to the action; the scriptures say that "A man without understanding is like the beasts that perish" Jesus had understanding - from the time he was 12yrs old and amazing the teachers of the law. Where in all of the scriptures is this genital thing elaborated on? He is the seed of the woman who was born into the family line of David. All we can possibly know is what the scriptures tell us. Speculation is on the same level as manipulation. On TT this morning it seems both abound. I am at a disadvantage as we are on the road headed to TX and I am using WIFI at the motel so don't have access to any study helps. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Amen, David! - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean wrote: Then how can can the Second Adam be the same as the first? He's not. Jesus was unique because of his spirit, not his flesh. Dean wrote: You guys are stating that Christ was no different than Hitler Not true. Dean wrote: but Hitler was the same as the first Adam exactly the same-in the above you show the second Adam to be different. This is our point.If Christ was the same as the first we are still in our sins Bill. Nobody is saying that Jesus was not different. We are talking about the details of how he was unique. Was his physical body unique, or his spirit, or both? We say his spirit was unique. His birth was unique. On the other hand, his physical body came from the loins of David. How do you deal with Acts 2:30, Dean? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
Well said again, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 08:55 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Bill wrote: What Christ did in the temple made by hands, is symbolic of what he did in the temple of his body, driving out everything which stood in opposition to his Father's will. Excellent point, Bill. Was Christ himself defiled for stepping into this Temple? No. He cleaned it up. Many rejected Jesus because he let prostitutes touch him. They thought he could not let that happen and still be holy. Well, holiness is not defined by the outward man, but by the inward man. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Good on ya mate! - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/1/2006 3:09:49 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy You make some good points, DH. What do you know fo James White's presentations -- respectful ? cd: The guy went to the Mormon Temple-stood there a couple of hours-only handing out tracks that nobody took from him-left to get coffee-and left for the day.Wrote on his site that he stood there all day long and handed out thousands of tracks( Iwent to his siteand spokeon this as he told me himself that he handed out thousands-I told him "I was right behindyou and I didn't see him hand out one track"-He asked me which oneI was andI said "I am the one who told you that you are standing in the place of a preacher so get too preaching"-and White told me not tocontact to him again).Hequit going too the temple-and blamed that on us also,but does still take money from people pretending to go to the Temple.White and Hinn have a lot in common.Concerning the waving the underwear-If someone states that their special underware helps them get to heaven-I will hold them up and declare that this is not a way to righteousness but Jesus Christ is .If nbsp;one makes that wrong that is between them and God. He is one busy hombre, that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] free speech has limitations. We recognize that.DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law. On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear.For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT. Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise.However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside.DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogueDAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that theory?I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too? DAVEH: I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Stereotype, David? I have the greatest respect for you, your family and your ministry! I do have a little fun from time to time, David. . - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? LOL. Lance, it is not recanting. You are just starting to understand me a little better. As I said before, all of us are engaged in the work of interpreting Scripture. However, some of us also receive revelation from time to time. That revelation is in part. None of us have the entire picture. When we come together in love and share, our understanding increases. I'm glad you are starting to see the bigger picture and relinquishing your stereotype of me. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? DM says of Judy, 'your interpretation'! As he placed himself alongside JT on the 'inspiration/illumination' thingy then, once again I commend him for recanting. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 08:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote: David, I don't see the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary as divinely inspired ideas; both are the thinking of religious spirits through men of the cloth. I'm glad to hear that, but history tells us that those who embrace the premise which you have will be forced eventually either to abandon their premise or accept the logical consequence of their thinking that Mary herself had to be different too. Judy wrote: Also I believe that going on and on about David's genitals is equally bizarre. What is too difficult for God? Does he have to do things the same way every time? We must start with the premise that God did it this way because the Bible teaches us that he did it this way. Then we seek to understand it. As we do, we come to an understanding of justice and God's legal system that helps us understand it. We also come to understand the full extent of salvation, and how salvation culminated at the cross, but was not entirely accomplised only by what happened at the cross. There is so much more that could be said, but not enough time to say it all. My point is only that God could do it in many different ways, but we are taught in Scripture how he did it. We should accept that. Judy wrote: Scripture says Jesus was born of the woman and he was born pure and holy - without the taint of the first Adam. This is what I believe. The last part, without the taint of the first Adam, is not in the Bible. It is your interpretation of the word holy. My perspective is that the taint of the first Adam being resident within the physical body does not automatically make a person unholy. Else, how could John the Baptist be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb? As for the rest of what you said, I agree. Jesus was born of the woman and was pure and holy. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- 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] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
IMHO DM is quite correct on this point. (Spoken as a frequent offender) LM - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Bill wrote: ... I agree with your critique of my (our) approach. I backed Judy into a corner and presented her with only two options: either repent or FIGHT. My hope was that she would choose the former; of course, she did not. Hence the likelihood that I will be able to reach her at all is remote. Perhaps this could be a good lesson to us all . . . From my perspective, you are challenging her beliefs passionately. Nothing wrong with that, but we do need to watch it a bit and not push someone too far over the edge. Jesus was also pushing people to the edge, and he could have easily pushed them over, but he is patient and pushes them out of their comfort zone just the right amount. It is not always easy to tell how far to push, but we should be conscious that we could push an issue too far. My hope is that you don't stop, but recognize when to ease off a little and when to press in a little more. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Well said, Perry. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Dave, sounds like you'er still a little sore for getting booted off of TT for continuing a banned topic. Old news...move on. I also think your concept of free speech is a little twisted. Free speech laws apply in a public forum, but TT is not a public forum. It is a private discussion group. The owner of the group has the right to request common decency, and ban those who use profanity if he wishes. Just like in your home, if says something that offends you, you can kick them out. However, if you meet them on the public sidewalkthey can saywhatever they want andyou cannot do a thing (legally) to prevent it (unless, of course, slander is committed, then you have legal recourse). Why do you think the mormon church is trying to buy public property? To make it private so they can control what is said there and who says it. You also seem to be a legalist. You seem toforgetcommon decency when there are "laws" that say you can do something. Read Alexander Soltzenitsyn's address to the 1975 graduating class at Harvard for an excellenttreatise on legalism and common decency. Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyDate: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:35:17 -0800 free speech has limitations. We recognize that.DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law. On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear. For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT. Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise. However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside.DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogueDAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that theory?I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too?DAVEH: I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives like in return. IOWI don't think JW waved underwear in the faces of those he expects to listen to him. My guess is that JW understands the real nature of free speech, based on his experience speaking to an
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Hypothetical?? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 13:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? The union is hypostatical, i.e., is personal; the two natures are not mixed or confounded, and it is perpetual -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are still blending the natures of Christ, Dean. The result is mixing you up. The Divinity of Christ was in no way tainted by his humanity. As God and man, Christdefeated sin inhis own flesh, rendering it powerless in his resurrection from the grave. In the new birth we are born into his resurrection, new creatures; hence we are given life from beyond the tomb, where sin, death, and the devil cannot reach us -- if, that is, wedaily put to death that oldman who still wants to rear his head. Dean, I say this with the utmost sincerity: You really do need to let go of your alloy view of Jesus; it can only confuse you. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/31/2006 11:19:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cdwrites: So I ask you How is one able to produce destruction for men while the other produces a quickening spirit for men? And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. -- 1 Corinthians 15.45-47 The first Adam was made from dust and received from Godthe breath of life. His mandate was one: "Be fruitful and multiply."But rather than doing what he was told, Adam chose instead to do the inexplicable. Adam'ssin brought death not only to himself but also to all of his descendants -- Jesus included.What did the first Adam produce? He produced death. The second Adam was born into the fall of the first. But he was also God. In this one person of Christ God and man came together and accomplished what man alone could not do: the undoing of the firstAdam. Throughout his life, Christ's response to the fall was not to sin, not to do what Adam had done, but to do his Father's will. Hence in his person, Christ reclaimed Adam's posterity (not to mention Adam himself), defeating what had brought death to them all. Then Christ paid the ultimate price: he died on their behalf. Ah, but because he had defeated in his own flesh that which had condemnedthe flesh of Adam, death had no power to hold him.Now in ascension the Second Adam sends his spirit to give life to thosewho could only die without him. Who is the Second Adam? He is the life-giving Spirit. --- cd:Right-Then how can can the Second Adam be the same as the first? You guys are stating thatChrist was no different than Hitler but Hitler was the same as the first Adam "exactly the same"-in the above you showthe second Adamto be different. This isour point.IfChrist was the same as the first we are still in our sins Bill. - This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
What you actually do (how you live your life, the content of your character) IS what you believe. Other than this is abstract, theoretical and dualistic. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 14:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' JD wrote: What does this mean: Your ideas will change. You as a person will not change? What I mean is that you, your identity, who you are, will not change. However, your ideas will change. You are growing and maturing in your thoughts and viewpoints. Therefore, any challenge I might make concerning something you have said is not against you, it is against what you have said. Even then, it may simply be misunderstanding on my part instead of on your part, but we don't know which it is if I am quiet. I encourage you not to take my comments personally. I desire what is best for you as a person. I know that God is working on you and in your life. My comments are not against you, even when you think they are. My comments are meant to help you, and to help us better understand one another. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
Ya know that baseball bat that's goin' from Colorado to California...well..send one to Florida will ya? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 14:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation No, John, that won't work. You have to learn to shift gears to understand street preaching. I would never speak this way one on one. It only shuts the person down. In street preaching, however, we can redirect our speech toward others. We can bring out what the homosexuals are really about. Take my banner, for example, that says, Beware Queer University. When people complain about the banner being offensive, I ask them to please tell me what is offensive about it. If it is the word Queer I explain that the word Queer is used by the homosexuals themselves, and that part of their agenda is to make this word common place like the word Gay is now used for a homosexual man. I sometimes ask a homosexual standing there, sir, please tell everyone here if I am speaking the truth. If I took off the word Beware from this sign, and it only said, Queer University, and I rallied people, telling them that this University should be known to all as Queer Univeristy, and all the Queers should come here to this University, wouldn't you like that? Every time the homosexual will agree and say, yes, that would be great. The point is that most people do not understand that this is the homosexual agenda. Many of us do not want the University to become Queer University. We only want it to be a place where homosexuals can attend and find help to stop sexual behavior that God condemns. So my point is that a counseling session is conducted much differently than a street preaching session. If you can't shift gears, stick with counseling and let others do the street preaching. They will be more effective at it than you would be. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation Should I try your approach in my next counseling session? O. !! Glad you folks were able to make it. My understanding is that you two queers have some sort of misgiving about the perception of others concerning your sodomizing way of life. Hopefully, at the end of this session, you two faggets willl see the love I have for who you could be in the Lord as I do what I can to lead you away from the hell fire you are so deserving of because of your love for each others buns .. and .. aahhh. well !! at least I did the best I good. If they won't listen to the truth, let the little faggets go to hell. That is apparently what they really want !! If they think I was hard on them, they should see what the Lord tells me to say to the Mormons !! How am I doing? Think it might work -- to any degree.? I rest my case. jd -- Original message -- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD wrote: The shock and awe you all experienced with the use of the f'in word is the same dismay many feel when the word sodomite is used. The context, however, is much different. Homosexuals should be ashamed of the word sodomite. They should also be ashamed of the word Queer. However, they are working hard for society to accept the word Queer as a nice term, and they will do the same thing with the word sodomite. Right now, however, society thinks of what sodomy means, and many people still consider this sexual perversion. A very frequent question I am asked is whether or not sodomy is acceptable between a man and a woman. When I respond that it is not, they jest about being greatly disappointed. ; Do we know that people don't like the word sodomy? Of course. However, we use it because 1) it is not a foul word like the F word, and 2) it brings to light the perversion of what homosexuality is all about. I would rather use the word sodomy or sodommite to make my point rather than trying to detail exactly what is wrong with what they do. Some of us try hard to use illustrations, such as an electrical cord with male and female ends, showing who male to male does not work as it was designed. Sometimes, however, people don't get it and we do have to more specifically describe what we are talking about, much to the embarrassment of people who truly do not understand the kind of life that homosexuals are promoting with their agenda. Judy wrote: She brought out that passionate discontent rather brilliantly. Perhaps so, but she grossly fails to understand the spiritual reasons for this discontent. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense
Hello Christine: If you and your dad are NOT on the side of "neither male nor female" as per the Scriptures then, you (both) are on the side of "suppression". Also, that would place you (both) against the Lord on this issue. What is happening to you at the U of F is simply comparable to the practice within your family "unit" so, get over it. - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense Lance wrote:As to suppression of free speech..well..it'd appear that that's what takes place within your family unit..at least for the females.Excuse me, but as a female within my father's family unit, I can tell you that there is no suppression of free speech. My father is extremely tolerant, and his accepting attitude has always given me the freedom to express myself. I would advise list members to speak on subjects which they know. I know my father, and you are off the mark.-ChristineLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'feminine approach'?? 'emasculates society'?? One would, at the very least, have to grant you your gila monster-like tenacity when you latch onto a way of seeing, David. As to suppression of free speech..well..it'd appear that that's what takes place within your family unit..at least for the females. I actually believe that the particular hatred you express herein may stem from some disorder originating in your youth concerning your 'male identity'. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk Sent: January 29, 2006 21:19 Subject: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense There are two approaches to the problem of people being offended. One approach is to have speakers work hard at not ever offending anyone. I call this the feminine approach. It basically emasculates society and suppresses free speech. The other approach is to teach people to be tolerant and not to take offense when someone presents a strong argument. I think this is the better approach. Obviously people should not be so insensitive that they railroad over people, but our society as become way too feminized when signs in public places that promote righteousness and serving God offend them. David Miller. What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
You, David, like many, are FOR THE BIBLE, as you put it, when you massage it to your own ends. One the FEMALE free speech issue you are simply unbiblical. Deal with it, David (by extension Christine, Mrs. David etc.) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 19:55 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech David Miller wrote: It is not a sin to attend a Benny Hinn service seeking for a healing from God. It is a sin for the University to promote and indoctrinate students to engage in homosexual fornication. Lance wrote: 'not a sin to...' Says who, David? The Bible, Lance. BIBLE, BIBLE, BIBLE. 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.
Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 30, 2006 12:36 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-christ orthodxy IS the issue. either the heresies at hand were settled by the fathers or they were settled by the Nestoriuns. either St. Gregory's statement about the 'unassumed being unhealed' is correct, or it is not. either Jesus became human to deal with the human condition, or he did not. either I was crucified with Christ as a human being, or I was not. the question, in any event ought to be: if the new covenant is in effect, and there is indeed a new creation established in the resurrection of Jesus, and if the identity of the person of Jesusiswritten into the flesh of my heart and known by my mind without benefit or need of teaching; then why am I impelled to argue one side while someone else argues the other? this seems to methe more important question. why do we remain in the dark when the light is always shining? if I have been crucified with Christ, what is there to be afraid of, and yet, why am Istill afraid? why is the comfort that was promised to me by my Lord andof whichI have occasionalawareness a transient experience? eschatalogically speaking: for what is my experience as a human being preparing me? RD http://sites.silaspartners.com/perichoresishttp://dancinggod.org/
Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Which Jesus is 'real', David? I have every confidence that who Jesis is matters to you. To the extent that Judy influences others with her 'Jesus' she is not an influence for good (teaching.) It may be that you take exception to 'language' more than I. Your nation Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 31, 2006 12:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller' Lance wrote: Judy preaches a 'Zirchon' (looks real but isn't) Jesus and, you are not offended. You are mischaracterizing Judy. Judy believes that Jesus is real. Lance wrote: You and yours appear comfortable in giving offence (other than that given by the preaching of the GENUINE JESUS) but not in receiving it, even when warranted. I am never comfortable giving offense, and I never purposefully give offense. I feel just like Jesus on this, blessed is he who shall not be offended in me. Lance wrote: David, the 'F' word is far less offensive than the 'Z' word, IMO. I disagree. Zircon is used to illustrate the meaning that Judy reads into the meaning of likeness. It is helpful in the discussion because then I can say, ok, but a Zircon is a counterfeit diamond and Jesus is not a counterfeit, or likeness sometimes means close imitation in one way but not another, but sometimes likeness is caused by a genetic relationship, such as in identical twins. Even sinners know not to use the F word, and even profane gentlemen know not to say it around women and children, but unfortunately in today's culture, even educated Christian women will purposefully be obscene and speak that which is not holy in order to make a point. Shameful. It was not a necessary choice of words. It did not help make her point. It only served to offend those of us who cast down every evil thought and imagination. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Judy's theology, David, may be 'the spirit of the Antichrist'. I believe that it is. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 31, 2006 12:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyThe working of iniquity expresses itself in many ways. The homosexual agenda and the feminine movement is part of it. It is the spirit of Antichrist. The concept is expressed in 2 Thess. 2:7. Paul's foundation is from the book of Daniel. Daniel 11:37 (37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy 'deceived by the working of iniquity'? 'no understanding of the issues'? Please elaborate on 'the working of iniquity', David. Please help Debbie and myself understand the issues, David. Lance PS:Have you ever played the game 'hangman', David? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 17:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness
[TruthTalk] Fw: Interesting observation
Title: Interesting observation - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 31, 2006 13:26 Subject: Interesting observation Somewhat ironically, given Judy's remarks about Roman Catholicism and the orthodox view of Jesus' humanity, here is a quote from Victor's [edited] lecture: Veneration of Mary was another feature of the religion of the common people. As noted already, their predominant image of Jesus was as judge coming to punish the wicked; his saving and intercessory work had receded far into the background. But every human being has an unappeasable hunger for a saviour, a redeemer, an intercessor, and this role became Mary's: she was felt to be gentle and pitying and human, softer and kinder than Jesus. The reformers were to address this matter at length, magnifying our Lord’s humanity especially as our sin-bearer and intercessor. It is when the humanity of Jesus is allowed to recede, so that his effectual sin-bearing oneness with all humankind is lost to sight and his intercession on behalf of his people disappears, that Mary is handed the role of intercessor or co-redemptrix, for someone must be summoned to furnish human solidarity with sinners. Indeed, the heart of Reformation theology is Christology. While the reformers denounced medieval Marianism frontally as idolatry, they did a great deal to dismantle it simply by their understanding of Jesus as the one who not only mediates God to humankind, but savingly represents and therein mediates all humankind to God. D --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006
[TruthTalk] 'i DON'T UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Judy preaches a 'Zirchon' (looks real but isn't) Jesus and, you are not offended. Others take exception to some of that which you say/do along with the manner of _expression_ and, we are described as 'not getting it'. You and yours appear comfortable in giving offence (other than that given by the preaching of the GENUINE JESUS) but not in receiving it, even when warranted. It'd appear that in saying that 'I (you) don't understand' that you actually don't. There is a certain sadness is witnessing such as yourselves. David, the 'F' word is far less offensive than the 'Z' word, IMO.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
You addressed two profoundly important matters. 1. 'Flesh and blood gospel'. 2. The 'Kingdom He came to declare.' Amen to the former and, we ARE participating in the latter. Even if by mistake Judy, thanks! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy 'deceived by the working of iniquity'? 'no understanding of the issues'? Please elaborate on 'the working of iniquity', David. Please help Debbie and myself understand the issues, David. Lance PS:Have you ever played the game 'hangman', David? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 17:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use theF word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understandingof the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural convention from their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
'not a sin to...' Says who, David? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 21:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech cd wrote: DavidM what is the difference between your words to Lance concerning public preaching and your stance concerning preachers at B.Hinn? I can hardly believe you are asking me this question. It is not a sin to attend a Benny Hinn service seeking for a healing from God. It is a sin for the University to promote and indoctrinate students to engage in homosexual fornication. CD wrote: It seems to me you are doing the same thing as Lance was doing to Christine. There are some differences. I'm not reading newspaper accounts and concluding from them false ideas about what the protestors of Benny Hinn are doing. I react from what Paul Mitchell described about it. Nevertheless, the biggest problem is the context. Homosexual behavior is a sin, but seeking a healing from God at a Benny Hinn meeting is not. Even if it is misguided, it is not a sin. CD wrote: Did you know that Kevin- whom you preached with in Florida- and Ruben are leaders who organize preaching at Hinn events? No, I did not know that. Ruben and I have worked events for a lot of years now. He has apparently had the wisdom to keep this from me. If he ever did let such be known, he probably knows that I would rebuke him for it. CD wrote: Did you wittiness anything wrong with Kevin's preaching in Florida? Dean, he was witnessing to people partying, getting drunk, and looking for sin. Of course, I did not witness anything wrong with his ministry. The people who go to a Benny Hinn service are not looking to commit sin. I can't understand why you don't see the difference. CD wrote: Do you think that he is of a jealous and envious nature? No. I already told you that my comments concerned other preachers who have told me of what they have done. CD wrote: How about Ruben and his nature? No. CD wrote: How about the stance you took on our preaching at the temple in SLC how is that different from the stance taken against you daughter? I have always supported the preaching at the temple in SLC, so there is a lot of difference, Dean. I don't understand why you always make out like I'm against you and street preachers. It is very strange. CD wrote: Maybe you know how we feel now? Now I know how you feel about what? I don't understand. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- 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] Tolerance Offense
'feminine approach'?? 'emasculates society'?? One would, at the very least, have to grant you your gila monster-like tenacity when you latch onto a way of seeing, David. As to suppression of free speech..well..it'd appear that that's what takes place within your family unit..at least for the females. I actually believe that the particular hatred you express herein may stem from some disorder originating in your youth concerning your 'male identity'. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk Sent: January 29, 2006 21:19 Subject: [TruthTalk] Tolerance Offense There are two approaches to the problem of people being offended. One approach is to have speakers work hard at not ever offending anyone. I call this the feminine approach. It basically emasculates society and suppresses free speech. The other approach is to teach people to be tolerant and not to take offense when someone presents a strong argument. I think this is the better approach. Obviously people should not be so insensitive that they railroad over people, but our society as become way too feminized when signs in public places that promote righteousness and serving God offend them. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ
No Judy!! ATY ought to prefix all of your speculations. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ Really Lance? Then you don't have a wedding garment because your old flesh is not going anyplace but into the ground. Your outer man is perishing as we speak On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:41:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You addressed two profoundly important matters. 1. 'Flesh and blood gospel'. 2. The 'Kingdom He came to declare.' Amen to the former and, we ARE participating in the latter. Even if by mistake Judy, thanks! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 06:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit of anti-Christ You major on the minors Bill because this is of paramount importance to your flesh and blood gospel However, yours is not the Kingdom He came to declare and fleshwill neverglory in God's presence. "For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are. That no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Cor 1:26-30) On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,. . ."(Acts 17.26-28a) "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his genitals according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ... (Acts 2.29-30)
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
One smiles, not, I trust in derision, Judy. Look
Judy, DM has a 'Geek gospel' but, it is certainly not the case that all 'Geeks'
are saved. So then, just to put your fertile imagination to rest, Judy,
..NO!
'who His Own Word say He is'...MEANING:As I, Judy
Taylor (and, as I David Miller) infallibly 'read' the Scriptures...when will you
ppl (Lance, Bill, John et al) come to understand that the Scriptures require no
interpretation!! Put aside childish things (Greek/Hebrew/theology/critical
thinking etc) and, join DM myself. Hereafter, boys, ask us (DM I)
and thereby save yourselves a 'ton' of time. When will you children
learn?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 30, 2006 07:03
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the
Root and the Offspring of David
Bill you have a Greek gospel because your faith rests
in Gk words .. I wonder, are allGreeks saved??
Jesus Christ is who His Own Word says he is whether
or not orthodoxy agrees and whether you see it or not. Right
nowyou are attempting to validate the pronouncements oforthodoxy
which is the religion you hold to.
The seed to whom the promises were made is SPIRITUAL SEED Bill and the second Adam is
spiritual also (see 1 Cor 15:45,46). Please don't try to make it something it
is not. Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him for
righteousness. His sperma who thought they
all had it made in the shade got a rude awakening in John 8:33; Jesus burst
their bubble so to speak. The seed of Abraham
are the children of faith or "spiritual seed" see also Galatians 3:29. I
am not saying that Jesus did not walk around in a flesh body as the gnostics
of John's day did - so please do not bring out the old red rebellion flag once
more becauseit is getting quite wearisome
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:15:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I am theRhiza
('Root' or 'Life-source')and the
Genos (from which we get'gene' and
'genome,'hence 'Offspring') of David."
Indeed, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man -- he
isboth the Maker and the receiver of David's "genetic" material.
Likewise, "Before Abraham was I AM," and "Now to Abraham and his
Seed were the promises made; he does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many,
but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
Precisely!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:53
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The spirit
of anti-Christ
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:58:42 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'..I am [the Root and] the
Offspring of David..'--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Not a harsh word among them..."ONE FEW OF YOU SEEM TO KNOW PERSONALLY, IT APPEARS (TO ME ...AND TO DM OCCASIONALLY) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 30, 2006 07:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:32:56 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His death was the victory not His life. Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Beats me - You ppl are the ones smaking such a big deal out of his "humanity"and I believe the rcc teaches the same especially since one of their fathers came up with the wholly God, wholly man statement. Now we have to adjust all doctrine to fit that don't we? Lord forbidmaking Tertullian look like a false prophet even if God's own Word contradicts him. Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection --not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. He is not a package Bill. He is a person - one few of you seem to know personally it appears. Why did Paul tell ppl he ministered to "I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?" Why was he so negligent about the sperm of David and the incarnation? May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean:sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine. Bill Hate to challenge the good Gustaf .. but the tyrant was the prince of this world and his children. Satan held the keys of death and he has the power over sin. Jesus came to do good and to heal all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Funny wording that - you would think the apostle would have said "for he was fully man and fully God". - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Amen! Now this is good doctrine. Thank you Dean, what a blessing you are in the Lord... From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree? Then here's another verse to help. Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/29/2006 2:05:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in Hismembers- for victory. You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). cd:No, I think I will stay the course Bill. The Law mentioned was only weakin our flesh not Christ's flesh-He came in the "likeness of that flesh" butthe law worked in Him who was not weak. This supports my view-disagree?Then here's another verse to help.Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us. His death was the victory not His life. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
I do, David. Stop whining and, get on with it, David. . - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 00:24 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech Lance wrote: When you and your daughter decide to exercise free speech with respect to OP's life choices then, expect that at least some of them will respond in a less than considerate fashion. Duh! I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
David: You live in a free country. IFO don't object to that which you, Christine et al engage in. I just believe that you ought to brief her on what to expect. Snakes bite, David. Poisonous snakes kill, David. Are you so thoroughly unaware of condition of your own nation, David? You, along with Judy, seem easily to resort to accusations and name calling when running short of legitmate arguments, David. We understand, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 00:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech My reaction is not surprise, Lance. I consider their action to discpline Christine to be outrageous and illegal. You should feel the same way. It is a clear case of discrimination, and at the bottom of the letter is written, an Equal Opportunity Institution. What hypocrisy! You ought also consider Christine's young age. She does not expect this kind of hatred from people who claim that we should love and tolerate everybody. She does not expect the lies and falsehoods. So as a father, I also deal with her weeping and hurt over this. You respond with callousness and a completely inept ability to understand the issues involved. You also seem to believe the false reports and false characterizations. You often remind me of the hypocrite Christians who object to us. Just today, I was with Kevin Deegan in Tampa. About ten of us were standing on the sidewalk. We were waiting there to regroup with some others. A man came out from a house nearby and began to tell us that we were on private property and he wanted us to move on. He did not want to see the banners. At first I said that this was public property, not private, but we would be moving along very soon. Then I was prompted by the Spirit to deliver a message. I raised my hands, pointing toward heaven to Jesus, and I raised my voice in preaching style and said, Sir, Jesus says that if you are ashamed of him, he will be ashamed of you on the day of judgment when you stand before him on that day. He ignored me at first, so I said it again. Then he looked at me directly, and so I said it a third time as I looked him directly in the eyes. Then he asked me why I was dressed up, telling me that I should look like him and have beads around my neck and a drink in my hand. I said, there is nothing wrong with looking nice, is there? He agreed that I looked nice, and I smiled and walked over and shook his hand. As I talked with him a little, he warmed up and I placed my hand on his shoulder in a loving way and asked him if I could pray with him. He said sure, but it was not necessary because he was fine. I said, you are fine? Yes, he said, I am a minister, a Presbyterian ordained minister of the gospel. Suddenly I knew why I was so motivated to tell him that Jesus would be ashamed of him if he was ashamed of us standing out in front of his house. What kind of Christianity is this? I know you hate my little anecdotes which you take to be so full of pride, but I just had to tell you this one because in many ways, this man makes me think of you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech No Judy, that is not my meaning. DM's post seemed to indicate surprise over the school's response. Why? When one enters the 'fray' one ought to expect persons to contest her point of view. She is a woman and, peer to many who don't like what she is doing. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 11:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech Are you intimating that Christine is harmful because she speaks the truth in a public setting Lance? Sad that there is no honor or wisdom in these places of learning ie: Professing themselves to be wise they became fools On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:11:44 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat. From: Judy Taylor I, for one am apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the University of Florida - My how far we have fallen. Where is the freedom of speech we are promised and why is it OK to promote every perversion publicly on this Campus but God's Truth is ridiculed and maligned? I find it interesting that the ppl who came up to Christine in private to agree with her stand were too timid and fearful to support her publicly. This is truly ominous Christine is being persecuted for the sake of righteousness. It may be hard on the flesh but you should be rejoicing Christine that you are counted worthy to suffer for His Names sake... God Bless you ... judyt -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Shine away, David. God be with you and with Christine. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 00:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance, event preaching is a little different from campus preaching. Please try not to confuse the two. Furthermore, even at event preaching, we don't condemn those in attendance. We reprove, rebuke and exhort. We wake up Christians who are out there sinning, knowing that they really should not be there. We are a light in a dark place. As for the testimonies, I don't post all of those because I know that people like you will call it bragging and pride. What I do is show the ugliness so others in the Lord will see the need to let their light shine. If we keep the doctrine of Christ quiet, it is like the soldier in the battlefield keeping his safety locked on his rifle and pointed down. His weapon of offense becomes nothing but decoration. We believe that we should actually use our weapon, which is the Word of God. You might note that even Paul spoke of glorying in tribulation, and glorying in infirmities, and in persecutions, and in distresses for Christ's sake. Maybe you are not familiar with this kind of Christianity. Personally, I like it better than those ministers who compare score cards of how many people said the sinner's prayer with them. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? I'm so sorry Judy but, have you failed to read the recent posts concerning Christine? Have you also failed to read of DM's many misadventures or, to have seen the accompanying photographs? Here is some of the logic that underpins that which they do: Let us go forth with T-shirts and accompanying signage to some sinful event, condemn those in attendance and, thereafter give testimonies of those who took offence with accompanying surprise. Now, that's a bit of a charicature but, just a bit. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 07:02 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Imagination run amock Lance .. You have seen things that are not there, they are constructs of your own imagination. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:58:03 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Miller: putting Judy on trial, David? I've seen YOU go on over a thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum. You've demanded that said person humble themselves while offering up an apology for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts. Gimmeeabreak, David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your offspring, believe yourselves called upon by God to get in the faces of others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these groups take offence and retaliate. You claim to know the ways of the Lord, David. You, on some occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a midwife (I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.) Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice, deliver a lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans discernment. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance, why are you putting Judy on trial? You could share these messages with her in private you know. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:24 AM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times to the fact that if she takes this position, then everybody who disagrees with her interpretation of any passage must not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't give her pause at all... D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:04 AM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scriptural Interpretation under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.The Scriptures are NOT self-interpreting. As I have said before many, many times Lance - God's Word needs no interpreter We
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
You do! She does! You cannot see. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 00:52 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance wrote: ... those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to infallibly read the Scriptures I don't esteem myself this way, and I don't think Judy does either. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Not in those words probably but, you do, I'm sure. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 01:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote: What is wrong with the following scenario apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I seriously doubt they say Rest assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell. I tell them that I am on no better ground than they are. The testimony of Jesus Christ is what we bring. People come under conviction and hear whatever they want to hear. A few weeks ago, a girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my banner to her school. I let her vent, but about the fifth time she started describing my banner as condemning and horrible, I stopped her and said, wait a minute, look at what the banner says... it says, 'JESUS WILL HEAL YOU'. What is so condemning about that? She was speechless then. She saw what she wanted to see through the bigoted stereotype of what she has been trained to believe that public preachers are all about. People believe the lie so much that they can't see the truth when it is staring them in the face. I can understand how some of my banners might be misconstrued, but this one is a message of hope. Jesus will heal you. Yet, even that message is characterized as condemning and an infringement upon their liberty. They should not have to look upon it with their eyes. The same people who talk about tolerance talk this way. Amazing. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
All right then, David, I'll drop getting in the face and insert pomposity, theologically ill-founded, legalistic and, self-righteous. Oh thou that callest another hypocrite...! - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 00:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance wrote: It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your offspring, believe yourselves called upon by God to get in the faces of others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these groups take offence and retaliate. Are you going to say the same thing if someone were to kill me? You don't seem to understand the difference between speech and unlawfulness. Let me clarify a little about this getting in the face. This is a FALSE characterization. I am not going into someone's house and standing between them and the movie they are watching and yelling at them. I am standing in a public area and inviting discussion and discourse. They are free to walk away if they are not interested or think that I'm a nut. Lance wrote: David. You, on some occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a midwife (I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.) LOL. Now that's funny. Actually, I don't use a midwife. I deliver my children without a midwife, just me and my wife in our home. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural convention from their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be taken aback if I get roundly told off for not observing it among them! But in any case David's other post suggests that he and others engaging in such activity glory in their persecutions. If so, what’s the argument? I thought they were expressing chagrin at the persecution? (What ever happened to the shake-the-dust-off-your-sandals principle?) That's likely already more words than this issue is worth, Lance, so I’ll stop blathering! D -Original Message- From: Lance Muir [HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:17 AM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 01:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote: What is wrong with the following scenario apart from telling ppl to go to hell which I seriously doubt they say Rest assured, Judy, that we do not tell people to go to hell. I tell them that I am on no better ground than they are. The testimony of Jesus Christ is what we bring. People come under conviction and hear whatever they want to hear. A few weeks ago, a girl kept complaining that I had no right to bring my banner to her school. I let her vent,
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Preach this at the University of Florida, Super Bowl and Mardis Gras, David. New signs/t-shirts "THE ZIRCON JESUS" - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 14:30 Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? It's not Dean who needs to do the rethinking Bill: "Likeness means just what it says ie: resemblance orsimilitude" A zircon is not a diamond - it is a "likeness", it resembles one. Jesus was made in the likeness of men (see Phil 2:7, Romans 8:3) From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Dean wrote: Christ came in the lower state for death on the cross thereby defeatingSatan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members-for victory. Bill writes: You might want to rethink that one, Dean: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, Goddid by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account ofsin: He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8.3). From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:37 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? [Original Message] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 1/27/2006 5:12:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Judy wrote: ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and that He is the second Adam. Eph. 2:6 speaks of how we as believers are raised up together inheavenly places in Christ Jesus. So in Christ, we too are "from heaven" so to speak now that we are in Christ, but this does not mean that we do not have within our bodies a sinful nature. We must die to that sinful nature daily, even as Jesus did. It is insulting to me that you do not think Jesus struggled against the temptations of his flesh, that he did not live a life ofself denial. To think that the Lord of glory would command us to do what he himself never had to do I truly think you will be apologizing to Jesus one day for not understanding how much he condescended to us men and women of low estate. It is like someone climbing into the pig sty to save a pig, and then his wife or someone close to that person claiming that he never got dirty when he did it. They are insulted that anyone would dare suggest that their loved one ever appeared in public filthy dirty. Well, maybe he is insulted that this person does not recognize the sacrifice and condescension he underwent to save the pig. Maybe he would prefer for people to understand the humiliation that he suffered in order to save the pig. cd: In the parable of a clean swine returning to his filth (dirt-as youuse it)-the filth (dirt) is sin and Christ never sinned for the need to be cleansed or return to sin or ever got any dirt on Himself so to use Him(ie :someone" in the above) in this manner is error. David do you believe that we grow to a deeper area of sanctification to where even the thoughts of sin can be kept at a distance? I do and view Christ as being more Holythan this type of holiness.Christ came in the lower state for death on thecross thereby defeating Satan-for victory-not to spend His life warring against sin in His members- for victory. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join,
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
David: Does provoked to respond this way (employing an acerbic tone with accompanying critical and, itself provocative language, which critiques beliefs/persons which another holds dear) entail SIN(NING)? Do you, David, on occasion do the same thing on TT or, elsewhere? Come on guys ?? You sound a little like Rodney what's his name.Family disputations over matters of substance may entail more than an apology to Jesus, David. Just ask Judy as she regularly consigns ppl to the pit who are themselves family members. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 17:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance wrote: IFO actually believe that Judy can't imagine why the 4 of us 'read' her as we do. The acerbic tone employed, IMO, is apparent to all save Judy. I'm not sure we all read Judy in the same way, Lance. What I mean is that her acerbic tone might seem a little more acerbic to you than it does to me. What I wonder is if you and others recognize that she has been provoked to respond this way. I also wonder if you think that Bill's tone also was a little sharp. Come on, guys, let's get back to meaningful discussions rather than judging one another. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Joke
SOL, David. (Smile out loud) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Linda Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 27, 2006 18:24 Subject: [TruthTalk] Joke A West Texas cowboy was herding his herd in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf? The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, Sure, Why not? The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his ATT cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, You have exactly 1586 cows and calves. That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves, says the cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then the cowboy says to the young man, Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf? The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, Okay, why not? You're a consultant for the National Democratic Party. says the cowboy. Wow! That's correct, says the yuppie, but how did you guess that? No guessing required, answered the cowboy. You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked; and you don't know anything about my business... Now, give me back my dog. -- 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.
Fw: [TruthTalk] Joke
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debbie Sawczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 28, 2006 06:17 Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Joke Whodathunkit? A PARTISAN in a totally non-partisan crowd. Oh well, I guess the Lord has political affiliations that we knew not of hmmm? Maybe He'll intervene so as to keep 'Commander in Chief' from going off the air. She plays an independent, you know. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Linda Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 27, 2006 18:24 Subject: [TruthTalk] Joke A West Texas cowboy was herding his herd in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf? The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, Sure, Why not? The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his ATT cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, You have exactly 1586 cows and calves. That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves, says the cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then the cowboy says to the young man, Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf? The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, Okay, why not? You're a consultant for the National Democratic Party. says the cowboy. Wow! That's correct, says the yuppie, but how did you guess that? No guessing required, answered the cowboy. You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked; and you don't know anything about my business... Now, give me back my dog. -- 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.
Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 27, 2006 17:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:18 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 09:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respec
Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times to the fact that if she takes this position, then everybody who disagrees with her interpretation of any passage must not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't give her pause at all... D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:04 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scriptural Interpretation under the tutelageof the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.The Scriptures are NOT self-interpreting. As I have said before many, many times Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need understanding, the scriptures are to be "understood" rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He turns it off or on according to the condition of the heart. God is not mocked MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at differing conclusions as to the meaning of the Scriptures. We will see whent he Lord returns which ones were "true" and which ones were not. To some who think they are "true" today He will say "I never did know you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness" It's only as we abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not some fleshly interpretation) abide in us ...that we are on the narrow way and headed toward the strait gate. Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM) believe that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to the ONE TRUE MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the entirety of the Scriptures)? Yes IFO do not believe that this is anywhere promised in the Scriptures themselves. It is not only promised it is demonstrated in the life of the apostle Paul himself who may have read lots of books before he fell down before the Lord on the Damascus Road but from all accounts he certainly did not afterwards. From: Judy Taylor On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten a
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
David Miller: "putting Judy on trial, David"? I've seen YOU go on over a
thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum. You've
"demanded" that said person humble themselves while offering up an apology for
less than Judy does in about one of every two posts. Gimmeeabreak, David!! It
strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your offspring, believe
yourselves "called upon by God" to get in the faces of others with accompanying
signage then call for the cavalry when these groups take offence and
retaliate.
You claim to "know the ways of the Lord", David. You, on some occasions,
act/speak/write as if just delivered by a midwife(I'm guessing
that to be your preferred method.)
Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice, deliver a
lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans discernment.
- Original Message -
From:
David Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Lance, why are you putting Judy on
trial? You could share these messages with her in private you know.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:24
AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times to
the fact that if she takes this position, then everybody who disagrees with
her interpretation of any passage must not be a true believer. I guess that
doesn't give her pause at all...
D
From: Lance Muir
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006
9:04 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message -
From: Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Scriptural Interpretation under the
tutelageof the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer prays
for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out the
Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.The Scriptures are NOT
self-interpreting.
As I have said before many, many times
Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need understanding,
the
scriptures are to be "understood"
rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He turns
it off
or on according to the condition of
the heart. God is not mocked
MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at
differing conclusions as to the meaning of the Scriptures.
We will see whent he Lord returns
which ones were "true" and which ones were not. To some who think
they are "true" today He will say "I
never did know you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness"
It's only as we
abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not some
fleshly interpretation) abide in us ...that we are on the narrow
way
and headed toward the strait
gate.
Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM)
believe that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to the
ONE TRUE MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the entirety of the
Scriptures)?
Yes
IFO do not believe that this is anywhere
promised in the Scriptures themselves.
It is not only promised it is demonstrated in the
life of the apostle Paul himself who may have read lots of
books before he fell down before the Lord on the
Damascus Road but from all accounts he certainly did not
afterwards.
From: Judy
Taylor
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my
apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would
stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to
conclusions. It is insulting to me --
although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would
endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know
Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I genuinely rejoice with you regarding your son. Much of that which you say herein resonates deeply with me. God be with you and, your family, Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance, one thing I have learned about you is that you do not pay attention, your pre conceived ideas rule in your own mind. I have said over, and over, and over and over that I do not consign ppl anywhere. This is not my call to make and so far as I am concerned as long as there is physical life there is hope. I have seen our own son, once a rebel now hungry for God's Word with God giving him understanding (which if you had known him before you would also say is a miracle). By the same token I am not presumptive enough to declarewho is and who is not a "family member" - (In God's Kingdom family that is). This call is also His and will happen in His time when Heseparates the sheep from the goats. In the meantime the wheat and the tares willgrow together since there appears to be a lot of confusion and little or no discernment and discipline in the present day professing Church. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] David: Does "provoked to respond this way" (employing an "acerbic tone" with accompanying critical and, itself provocative language, which critiques beliefs/persons which another holds dear) entail SIN(NING)? Do you, David, on occasion do the same thing on TT or, elsewhere? "Come on guys" ?? You sound a little like Rodney what's his name."Family" disputations over matters of substance may entail more than "an apology to Jesus", David. Just ask Judy as she regularly consigns ppl to "the pit" who are themselves "family members". From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: January 27, 2006 17:43Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Lance wrote: IFO actually believe that Judy can't imagine why the 4 of us 'read' her as we do. The acerbic tone employed, IMO, is apparent to all save Judy. I'm not sure we all read Judy in the same way, Lance. What I mean is that her "acerbic tone" might seem a little more acerbic to you than it does to me. What I wonder is if you and others recognize that she has been provoked to respond this way. I also wonder if you think that Bill's tone also was a little sharp. Come on, guys, let's get back to meaningful discussions rather than judging one another. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 06:58 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to sugg
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I'm so sorry Judy but, have you failed to read the
recent posts concerning Christine? Have you also failed to read of DM's many
misadventures or, to have seen the accompanying photographs? Here is some of the
logic that underpins that which they do: Let us go forth with T-shirts and
accompanying signage to some "sinful" event, condemn those in attendance and,
thereafter give testimonies of those who took offence with accompanying
surprise.Now, that's a bit of a charicature but, just a bit.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 07:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Imagination run amock Lance .. You have seen
things that are not there, they are constructs
of your own imagination.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:58:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
David Miller: "putting Judy on trial, David"? I've seen YOU go on over
a thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum. You've
"demanded" that said person humble themselves while offering up an apology
for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts. Gimmeeabreak,
David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your
offspring, believe yourselves "called upon by God" to get in the faces of
others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these groups
take offence and retaliate.
You claim to "know the ways of the Lord", David. You, on some
occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a
midwife(I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.)
Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice, deliver
a lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans discernment.
- Original Message -
From:
David
Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Lance, why are you putting Judy on
trial? You could share these messages with her in private you know.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006
6:24 AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
- Original Message -
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times
to the fact that if she takes this position, then everybody who
disagrees with her interpretation of any passage must not be a true
believer. I guess that doesn't give her pause at
all...
D
From: Lance Muir
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006
9:04 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk]
Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message -
From: Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Scriptural Interpretation under the
tutelageof the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer
prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out
the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.The Scriptures are
NOT
self-interpreting.
As I have said before many, many
times Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need
understanding, the
scriptures are to be "understood"
rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He
turns it off
or on according to the condition
of the heart. God is not mocked
MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at
differing conclusions as to the meaning of the
Scriptures.
We will see whent he Lord returns
which ones were "true" and which ones were not. To some who
think they are "true" today He
will say "I never did know you. Depart from me you who practice
lawlessness" It's only as we
abide in Him and HIS WORD
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny about that. He tends to hide Himself from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" From: Judy Taylor You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering. She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D From: Taylor What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a si
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Even the 'exalted one' had a 'revelation'
concerning BT. It was favourable concerning his 'living out the gospel'. Did you
forget that? Have you failed to read, from all of the aforementioned, life
anecdotes? I thought that 'see'rscould 'see'. As Dennie Crane would say,
upon receipt of an email from any one of the 'bad guys' 'lock and
load'.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 07:47
Subject: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
Very hard to tell Lance because noone you mention ie
G, BT, DS etc. revealthemselves; what I read from them
is mostly their opinions (of
others)-glowing ones aboutfavorite theologians and/or
critical onesconcerning
myself and many times DM. DS does produce a
little essay now and then which is well written but still centers
aroundher and her opinion ... Do they live out
the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to determine
this?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:33:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad)
guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no
pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you
represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of
JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the gospel.
Can YOU not see that also?
From: Judy Taylor
Once more Lance you put what you are about on to
me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or
no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The
difference between all of you and DM is that most of what
comes
from him is godly counsel; also he
showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say
what God
says consistently I see them as submitted to Him
rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny
about that. He tends to hide Himself from
some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy: DM an exception of course! How
utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more
highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read"
the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake
thou that sleepest"
From: Judy
Taylor
You wise ones will probably find it amusing
that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also
perceive no humility at all, none of any
kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any
spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed mind
going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks
sad to say this is what I see right now but I
don't give up on any of you because God will be God
and hopefully one day you will tire of
yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for
His.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
From: Debbie Sawczak
For Judy there is no "considering"
an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion
after considering.
She is of the "just say No" school.
One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get hooked.
D
From: Taylor
What kind of person could you be,
Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read:
nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for
understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You
may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a
Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be
likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour
denial.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 27,
2006 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Some might draw a comparison between the 'witch of Endor" and you but, I'd not place myself alongside such, Judy. You do appear to have some sort of 'gift' for wrong descriptions of many on TT. These back-and-forthis this morning JT, are simply an informed opinion regarding you. I've said this often of you. You strike me as a profoundly genuine; deeply committed believer. You are, IMO, in bondage to your "rightness".That, IMO, is downright sad. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 08:24 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:07:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even the 'exalted one' had a 'revelation' concerning BT. It was favourable concerning his 'living out the gospel'. Did you forget that? That was HIS revelation- not mine. My experience with BT has been anything but favourable and pleasant. Have you failed to read, from all of the aforementioned, life anecdotes? I thought that 'see'rscould 'see'. As Dennie Crane would say, upon receipt of an email from any one of the 'bad guys' 'lock and load'. I've read lots of words .. I wouldn't call them "life anecdotes". When you say "seer" are you thinking like "witch of Endor?" Where is this gift inNew Covenant economy? From: Judy Taylor Very hard to tell Lance because noone you mention ie G, BT, DS etc. revealthemselves; what I read from them is mostly their opinions (of others)-glowing ones aboutfavorite theologians and/or critical onesconcerning myself and many times DM. DS does produce a little essay now and then which is well written but still centers aroundher and her opinion ... Do they live out the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to determine this? On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:33:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad) guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the gospel. Can YOU not see that also? From: Judy Taylor Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes from him is godly counsel; also he showslove and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is funny about that. He tends to hide Himself from some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:08:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly ironic that those two (JT DM) who esteem themselves more highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that sleepest" From: Judy Taylor You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also perceive no humility at all, none of any kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going on (of course DMnot included). Well folks sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't give up on any of you because God will be God and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:20:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Debbie Sawczak For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conc
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 09:05 Subject: [TruthTalk] Free Speech I, for one am apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the University of Florida - My how far we have fallen. Where is the freedom of speech we are promised and why is it OK to promote every perversion publicly on this Campus but God's Truth is ridiculed and maligned? I find it interesting that the ppl who came up to Christine in private to agree with her stand were too timid and fearful to support her publicly. This is truly ominous Christine is being persecuted for the sake of righteousness. It may be hard on the flesh but you should be rejoicing Christine that you are counted worthy to suffer for His Names sake... God Bless you ... judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
No Judy, that is not my meaning. DM's post seemed to indicate surprise over the school's response. Why? When one enters the 'fray' one ought to expect persons to contest her point of view. She is a woman and, peer to many who don't like what she is doing. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 11:51 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech Are you intimating that Christine is "harmful" because she speaks the truth in apublic setting Lance? Sad that there is no honor or wisdom in these places of learning ie: "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools" On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:11:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat. From: Judy Taylor I, for one am apalled by the Reprimand sent to Christine Miller by the University of Florida - My how far we have fallen. Where is the freedom of speech we are promised and why is it OK to promote every perversion publicly on this Campus but God's Truth is ridiculed and maligned? I find it interesting that the ppl who came up to Christine in private to agree with her stand were too timid and fearful to support her publicly. This is truly ominous Christine is being persecuted for the sake of righteousness. It may be hard on the flesh but you should be rejoicing Christine that you are counted worthy to suffer for His Names sake... God Bless you ... judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech
I think you once spoke of being 'struck on the head with a baseball bat', David. What surprised me about this was that it was the first time. Side with the sodomites, David? When you and your daughter decide to exercise free speech with respect to OP's life choices then, expect that at least some of them will respond in a less than considerate fashion. Duh! - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 28, 2006 12:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Free Speech Lance wrote: Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. This would appear NOT to describe Christine. If she climbs in the ring then, she'd best be prepared for combat. I just want to remind you that most of the so-called reports about her are filled with false accusations. Christine is most certainly harmless as a dove. The enemy is attacking her in the same way that wolves select the weakest lamb in the sheepfold. I wish she had your support, Lance. Instead you seem to side with the sodomites who hate and despise her gentle and loving demeanor. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Scriptural Interpretation under the tutelageof the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.The Scriptures are NOT self-interpreting. MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at differing conclusions as to the meaning of the Scriptures. Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM) believe that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to the ONE TRUE MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the entirety of the Scriptures)? IFO do not believe that this is anywhere promised in the Scriptures themselves. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 08:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
FWIW, 4 of us 'read' Judy similarly. IFO actually believe that Judy can't imagine why the 4 of us 'read' her as we do. The acerbic tone employed, IMO, is apparent to all save Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 09:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Bill, opinions are like noses - everybody has one If yours isn't very pleasant - Oh well! You own it. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:04:13 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime,I hope you will consider my request. Sincerely, Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I genuinely appreciated your terse 'yes' in answer to an earlier question concerning Scripture, Judy. May I then ask for a similar response to the following: Do you acknowledge a 'tude' (attitude) in some (many) of your responses to various ones at various times? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 27, 2006 16:19 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? I know why all of you read me like you do Lance;no secret there nor is there any reason for me to be alarmed or sweat it. Sadly the broad road has always beenand always will befull of naysayers. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:32:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FWIW, 4 of us 'read' Judy similarly. IFO actually believe that Judy can't imagine why the 4 of us 'read' her as we do. The acerbic tone employed, IMO, is apparent to all save Judy. From: Judy Taylor Bill, opinions are like noses - everybody has one If yours isn't very pleasant - Oh well! You own it. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:04:13 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What kind of person could you be, Judy,if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't alwayscausing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once againyour denial. Bill From: Judy Taylor On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me -- although I know it was not intentionally so-- that you would suggest that I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:) and myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. ATST Bill it is insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and thatHe is the second Adam. And so I was hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be. Let go of truth out of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for this. I know, for example, that John is getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while Iam confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important doctrine. It is written Bill - the last and best words arewritten already and you can take them to the Bank.Believing them is the problem. Why would you want to malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right place? I would like to suggest that you take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity.Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may never co
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Dean: You asked 'where is the rest'? (the aforementioned 'methodology) There is more to follow over time but, I ask you to be particularly attentive to both the form and content of all of Bill Taylor's posts. In Bill you have as good a biblical theologian as you are likely to encounter. (with apologies to Bill for any embarrassment caused) The title of one of my favourite books is 'Faith Thinking' (Trevor Hart 1995) Bill's posts exemplify FaithThinking. Lance - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 07:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. There must be some reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective? You have a Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and that it was only after "having been perfected" --that is, after his resurrection even -- that he became the Author of salvation. You have a Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the truth." You have a Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh. You have a Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same," ... that he mightassume the nature ofAbraham's offspring. Indeed their is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge, then I must respectfully request that you please keep silent about things you cannot see. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I receive it in the spirit with which it is offered, Dean. (RESPECTFULLY) - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 09:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: I am not saying He isn't a "good" theologian but there will be issues I will disagreewith and express that disbelief-but he is not infallible. But if all keep silent then in just a short amount of time Bill will not be a good theologian with his own beliefs rather he will only present another theologians views.So let him prove himself to us common street preachers.Respectfully my opinion Lance. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:42:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean: You asked 'where is the rest'? (the aforementioned 'methodology) There is more to follow over time but, I ask you to be particularly attentive to both the form and content of all of Bill Taylor's posts. In Bill you have as good a biblical theologian as you are likely to encounter. (with apologies to Bill for any embarrassment caused) The title of one of my favourite books is 'Faith Thinking' (Trevor Hart 1995) Bill's posts exemplify FaithThinking. Lance - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 07:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. There must be some reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective? You have a Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and that it was only after "having been perfected" --that is, after his resurrection even -- that he became the Author of salvation. You have a Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the truth." You have a Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh. You have a Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same," ... that he mightassume the nature ofAbraham's offspring. Indeed their is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge, then I must respectfully request that you please keep silent about things you cannot see. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
FWIW Dean, PLEASE DO NOT KEEP SILENT! IFO value both your contribution and, your demeanour. Lance - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 09:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: Maybe I will have a change of heart and keep silent-if that's what youand the group really wants Bill?Or maybe I won't give you the choice and just keep silent. I will give it thought -goodbye Bill- may God bless you and His light shine upon you. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:36:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? corrections - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:31 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? John writes No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. cd responds Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. There must be some reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must you conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peek, and try to see th ings from our perspective? You have a Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and that it was only after "having been perfected" --that is, after his resurrection even -- that he became the Author of salvation. You have a Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the truth." You have a Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh. You have a Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same," ... that he mightassume the nature ofAbraham's offspring. Indeed their is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge, then I must respectfully request that you please keep silent about things you cannot see. Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
[TruthTalk] Methodology employed wherein one comes to a provisional understanding of ANYTHING
The Wesleyan quadrilateral was but a beginning..
[TruthTalk] PhD Thesis?
David: Thanks for your recent reply. I was sure that you'd spoken previously of having completed (actually written) your PhD thesis but, that it'd been rejected. I ask as I was told in the store once by someone with a PhD in paleontology of her not having included her own views but a position that would be acceptable to her review committee. I could not see you comprising. If, in reality, you wrote your thesis but, had it rejected, I'd still be interested in reading it. Did I understand you to say that you've never worked in any capacity that called on your training in science? (you do have an MA in science do you not?) What then is it that you do vocationally? thanks, Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] beginning
DH:You've been on TT too long NOT TO KNOW that, in the end, Dean's position on these matters will not come close to your (the Mormon) position. When speaking of, say, DM's position on creation, we do not have a 'house of cards' theology. Even though wrong DM is exegeting his understanding of the Scriptures. In your case you are NOT EXEGETING SCIPTURE, you are proferring Joseph Smith's 'inspired' understanding of the beginning.This IS a house of cards position, potentially. IFF Joseph Smith's understanding does not correspond with reality then...? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 24, 2006 06:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] beginning - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/24/2006 2:07:07 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] beginning [1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. cd This Universe/Time and all therein. The exceptions being The GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles. DAVEH: I understand you to mean that the pre-existence (where The GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles were in existence) was not part of the creation in/of the beginningis that correct, Dean? cd: Yes I hold that to be correct as we are discussing the beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1 of this universe. The GodHead had no beginning not end and the angels came at a different date prior to man.Satan is already in the garden in Genesis and mentioned as both being in the garden and as being created (v. 15) in Ezekiel 28:13-19. Note in verse 16 there is no salvation for his sin -not sins-one is en ought to send one to hell. So don't sin if you don't receive the gift of Christ-Oops too late- for all have sinned and fallen Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk Sent: 1/23/2006 12:09:11 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] beginning cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the Bible DAVEH: What do you perceive the beginning to be, Dean? I am asking this in context of Gen 1:1..[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. cd This Universe/Time and all therein. The exceptions being The GodHead,Heaven,and the Angles. Unlike B.Hinn who teaches that the earth existed before man and had to be destroyed-prior to the flood-Simular to David Miller's theory of the older earth. cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the Bible if one cares to search enough with believing faith and asking God for the answer-Men have always wanted to give an understanding of God that exists outside of the Bible that why cults profit and the only reason they exist. This started in the Garden with Satan: Yea,hath God said,...? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find
Re: [TruthTalk] beginning
All the answers to 'what' are in the Bible, Dean? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk Sent: January 23, 2006 00:09 Subject: [TruthTalk] beginning cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the Bible DAVEH: What do you perceive the beginning to be, Dean? I am asking this in context of Gen 1:1..[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. cd: Blaine I believe all the answers are in the Bible if one cares to search enough with believing faith and asking God for the answer-Men have always wanted to give an understanding of God that exists outside of the Bible that why cults profit and the only reason they exist. This started in the Garden with Satan: Yea,hath God said,...? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Quote of the Day
Example? The triune God is creator of the cosmos. Creationism puts the triune in a 'box' of our making. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Linda Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 22, 2006 16:55 Subject: [TruthTalk] Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: Truth will set you free; it is the argument that will bind you. Gene Colgrove, Crystal River, Florida. Every Saturday morning, 12-16 men come together and break bread. It is an oral TruthTalk session at a local restaurant which lasts several hours. Well, yesterday in our discussions, my friend Gene made the statement above. I asked him if he heard that somewhere. He said no, the thought is original with him. I consider it a very worthwhile proverb that I will probably carry with me for the rest of my life. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Please expand on 'personal covenant' DH. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 00:16 Subject: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language
IFO see almost no comparison between the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of Hinn. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 17:25 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language cd: I think the Street Preachers understand B. Hinn quite well. I see it differently. CD wrote: I have no problem with laying on hands to heal the sick-heck-I am even for this-but to travel great distances to believe Hinn has some special insite/power with God is error-it is suppose to be done with the elders of the church. If the elders of the church do not pray the prayer of faith, and the person finds that he is still sick, then there is nothing wrong with him going to someone who has faith or who has gifts of healings. Read 1 Cor. 12 and you will find that gifts of healings, miracles, and faith are not limited to elders of the church. CD wrote: When the women touched Christ and was cured of the issue of blood-what (virtue) flowed from Christ to the women Hinn does not have. I suspect that the only cure Hinn has to offer is to cure one of covenaent money as he has most of it. You comparison of Christ and Hinn in the above is a mistake. I only pointed out that even Jesus Christ could not heal many because of their unbelief. If such explains failure in prayer with Jesus Christ, how much more does it explain failure with us. Therefore, we ought not deter the faith of anyone just because they are seeking help through another minister. Such objections arise from jealousy and envy, not from the Spirit of God. The testimony of many people is that they have been healed by God through Hinn's ministry, which is why so many give money to him. When a person has an incurable disease, they often become extremely grateful to the person they view as responsible for facilitating that healing. I have had the poorest of the poor give me the widow's mite so to speak. You don't know how difficult it is to receive such a gift, but the Spirit taught me long ago, nobody can give if nobody receives. Therefore, the answer is to pour the money back into helping them. I don't know what Hinn does with his money. He may very well be spending it unfaithfully, but if your criticism concerns him receiving lots of money, then your criticism is misdirected at the wrong end of the cash flow. CD wrote: By the way when did we become protesters? I understood you to be a preacher-we are likewise. Sometimes preachers do protest, and these Benny Hinn events are merely protests against Hinn. Just listen to what they are saying, or consider their signs. If they were preaching, they would heal the sick through the laying on of hands and the prayer of faith as the people came in. It seems to me that these street preachers who protest Hinn are in error, filled with a spirit of envy and backbiting. I suspect the street preachers protesting at the Promise Keepers events are basically the same thing. 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.
Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having afallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction happening. He is'bending human nature back', purifying it,by his obedient life, his steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I remember TFT insistingthat wrong views of who Jesus was always end up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or both). D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I viewChrist as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature wasno lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone in:-) Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of these were compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that concern. The major difference between a belief in Jesus as having a human nature other than ours --some sort of a pre-fallen nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall, is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal battle, his would have been external to who he was in his human nature. His plight would have been to keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out. As Christians, we are called to put sin to death "in our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that battle, and hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress mentality: just keep sin out of his members andhe will have proven it can be done. Well, that is notonly nothelpful to us --as we've already missed out on that opportunity -- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in the way thatwe experience it.And if he only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin from within ourplight, thenall he can really do is become our offering for sin (not that he is not that, too). Thus hemay be our perpetual bull or goat, but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we never get to walk in his steps, as ours is altogether a different starting place than his. The best then that your view can offer is a substitutionarytheory of the atonement (and again not that Christ was not also our substitute). Yours is that God takes Christ's righteousness and imputes it to us and takes our sin and imputes it to him -- a legal transaction, if you will, but not a helpful one since we are still in our sin, it not having been defeated in our members. And so, even this double imputation is lacking in your view; indeed, it is a legal fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not; and he winks at his Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all know you're not"; hence it is fiction on both accounts.On the contrary, see 2 Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his Son, perfect from eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh --that is,replete with David's nature,which is "Sin" with a capital S-- in order that he might defeat sin where in resides in sinful humanity, so that we might experience genuine righteousness and not the kind you have to wink at. Look with me at Mark 7.20-23 and at James 4.1, and ask yourself if a man who does not have a fallen or "Sin" nature (your kind of Jesus) could actually be tempted in every way like his brothers: And [Jesus] said, &quo
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
When one employs a text in order to address a concern or, to make a point then, ONE HAS A DOCTRINE, JUDY. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner- First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin nature. A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the same" So far as humanity is concerned - There is none righteous, no not one. Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always has been righteous. The same nature - yesterday, today, and forever Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other - but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned - the second only has potential for sin.. it is temptable. Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin nature) or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would they have violated that command. jd AE were created innocent; they did not know sin until they decided to disobey - that's all it took. This may conflict with your doctrine but that's just how it is. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/21/2006 2:30:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in . Yes, a good analogy but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; how crazy does it sound to say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows Satan which is the natural mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST he walks in the fullness of the Holy Spirit? cd: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's Children. This shows there is a clear distinction between the two. One can be of Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of Abraham seedand belong to God.Christ was of this nature-Hence He was with this nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He toldAbraham that because you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold my one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's decedents. Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place lt; FONT color=#ff size=3in you. Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
A point made some time ago to Judy. She didn't understand it then and, she'll not understand it now. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 23:22 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? (*, below,= 'therefore, JC wasn't a human being' which is rational, but not biblical;a sylogisticlie rather than) myth On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:00:03 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [a.]So far as humanity is concerned - There is none righteous, no not one. [b.]Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always has been righteous. [*.]
[TruthTalk] Everything God WANTS us to know
Question:Let's say that everything that Bill Taylor has been outlining these past weeks concerning Who Jesus Is is absolutely the case and, there is yet more to be said. In spite of his valiant, lucid attempts at explanation, most do not apprehend/believe what he's saying.What question(s) ought to be inserted at this juncture?
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
DAVID: Do you intend to answer my questions concerning your thesis? Lancel - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 08:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? JD wrote: Regarding Adam and Eve - if they did not have a sinful nature before their decision to disobey the Lord, they would have never disobeyed Him !! What is your basis for this assumption, John? Consider the following passage: Ezekiel 28:15 (15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Do you think the angels that sinned also were created with a sin nature? From my perspective, Adam Eve did NOT have a sinful nature as part of their constituency. It was the defiling nature of sin, and the selfish nature of a genetic evolutionary force, which has produced the sin nature that we observe in man today. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language
Thanks for the insight..into David Miller. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:14 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and biblical language Lance wrote: IFO see almost no comparison between the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of Hinn. I don't know about your extreme view of NO comparison, but I certainly don't find enough in the anecdotes that come my way to warrant me making too much of an effort to know this man. At the same time, nobody I have known flocks to his meeting in such a way as to warrant my concern. In other words, he is not a magnet of false theology or a false religious system like Joseph Smith or other such individuals. The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil, and every critic I have read always focuses on the money. If Benny Hinn were dirt poor, I don't think anybody would care about him. His critics would go away. I think that says a lot about the motivation of his critics. Such an observation does not justify Hinn, it only impugns the critic. I hope you can understand the difference. In regards to comparing ministries, I think the following passage ought to be considered and followed: Mark 9:38-40 (38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. (39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (40) For he that is not against us is on our part. Such a passage indicates that there were some who did not do it Jesus's way, and Jesus himself rebuked those who would forbad such a person. The perspective of Jesus was, he that is not against us is on our part. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Ph.D. thesis, David. Title, chapter headings, availability to be read? That one! Lance - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Lance wrote: Do you intend to answer my questions concerning your thesis? Sorry, Lance. I have lots of unread messages. What thesis? What questions? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
In that case Judy, you are wrong! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? In your economy Lance; I don't think or speak in those terms. To me a "text" as you call it is God's Word for which one either does or does not have understanding. Man shall not live by every "text/doctrine" but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:03:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When one employs a text in order to address a concern or, to make a point then, ONE HAS A DOCTRINE, JUDY. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 23:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:28:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner- First of all, Dean, Christ is God and Man. Secondly, don't think in terms of "fallen nature" but in terms of sin nature. A sin nature and a "fallen nature are one and the same" So far as humanity is concerned - There is none righteous, no not one. Jesus Christ, is pure, holy, and he is and always has been righteous. The same nature - yesterday, today, and forever Now, you may laugh thinking one is no better than the other - but I believe there is a difference. The first has sinned - the second only has potential for sin.. it is temptable. Adam and Eve were created with a temptable nature (a sin nature) or they would have never been given the charge to "not eat" nor would they have violated that command. jd AE were created innocent; they did not know sin until they decided to disobey - that's all it took. This may conflict with your doctrine but that's just how it is. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/21/2006 2:30:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: To me this fits the state of Christianity (our new state, a Christ-like state)not thelost man following Satan state that the world lies in . Yes, a good analogy but we as Christians are given a measure of the Holy Spirit; how crazy does it sound to say Jesus came into the world with a nature that follows Satan which is the natural mind and the same state that the world lies in... Oh but ATST he walks in the fullness of the Holy Spirit? cd: If Christ came in the fallen state He would have been a sinner-Yet God himself said He was well pleased with Christ-What sinner is God well pleased wit? Christ was of a righteous nature-not a fallen nature.In the below we see Christ saying "Yes, You are of Abraham's seed but not Abraham's Children-insteadyou areSatan's Children. This shows there is a clear distinction between the two. One can be of Abraham's seed and still belong to Satan-and One can be of Abraham seedand belong to God.Christ was of this nature-Hence He was with this nature in the flesh of Abraham's seed.When God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac He toldAbraham that because you have not withheld your son from me I will not withhold my one son from you-meaning he would send Christ to Abraham's decedents. Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Well.with Israel.through Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant things one more time. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham.Lance Muir wrote: Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation?
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
No - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 10:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: You are losing me with that comment, Lance. Do you not believe the Lord makes personal covenants with individuals?Lance Muir wrote: Well.with Israel.through Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant things one more time. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham.Lance Muir wrote: Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??
Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy, comes fromyour fertile imagination.Should you choose to equate that (your imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48 Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ?? On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by Judy. In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well. Not for me JD; the problem is yours and Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from God's Holy Word. The curse of the law is a present day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we speak. As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with the event of the fall. In fact, the fall is only possible because of a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience. How is that not true? Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very well. What about the first murder and the fact that within just a few generations God saw the need to destroy the whole shooting match - except for one family. I have said this several times before andI say it again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the theology of the "fall."Does such exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !! It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be selective along with the fact that you obviouslydon't have eyes to see. I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'" or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or .. well , you get the picture. Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even in Barth !! Who would want to "defend it" Much better to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ" Of course my paper would be vastly different from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills. Understand,I havebeen in this theological persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without success. jd Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak. -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having afallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction happening. He is'bending human nature back', purifying it,by his obedient life, his steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I remember TFT insistingthat wron g views of who Jesus was always end up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or both). D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: J
Re: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??
That may be true of one of us, Judy. Methinks it is
thou!
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 23, 2006 13:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The fall -
Where's the beef ??
You Lance, are obviously not familiar with the Word
of God. Your have been
tutored by the theological arguments put together by
men... so between your opinion
and spiritual reality there is a vast
gulf.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:41:26 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy,
comes fromyour fertile imagination.Should you choose to equate
that (your imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48
Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall -
Where's the beef ??
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by
Judy. In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking
concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well.
Not for me JD; the problem is yours and
Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from
God's
Holy Word. The curse of the law is a
present day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to
accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we
speak.
As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with
the event of the fall. In fact, the fall is only possible
because of a nature that provided for the opportunity of
disobedience. How is that not true?
Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible
very well. What about the first murder and the fact that within
just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy
the whole shooting match - except for one family.
I have said this several times before andI say it
again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover
an actual apologetic for the theology of the
"fall."Does such exist? How could it
not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle.
Where's the beef, I say ?? !!
It's all through the Bible - Your reading must
be selective along with the fact that you obviouslydon't have eyes
to see.
I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of
specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick"
theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute
in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or
paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'"
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or
.. well , you get the picture.
Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption ,
even in Barth !!
Who would want to "defend it" Much better
to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through
Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different
from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.
Understand,I havebeen in this theological
persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in
Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an
understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for
such an explanation without success. jd
Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of
arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.
--
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor
Man
I think the stumbling block for those
coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been
an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were
blemished in any way, and having afallen nature (not
unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I
understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a
sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than th
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
Thanks David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 13:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David? Lance wrote: Ph.D. thesis, David. Title, chapter headings, availability to be read? That one! In my biology program, we did not have a thesis for the Ph.D. We had a dissertation. I never completed this part of the Ph.D. program; hence, I never earned a Ph.D. My Master's thesis concerned prey size selection and the foraging ecology of the mangrove water snake, nerodia fasciata compressicauda. My study was published in the journal Copeia during the mid 1980's. I don't have an electronic copy of it. The library at the University of South Florida had it on its shelves at one time. I suppose you could get a copy through interlibrary loan, but I doubt the subject matter would interest you much. I had published another study in Herpetologica sometime around that same time whereby I described for the first time how these estaurine water snakes obtained fresh water. It is a less analytical article that might be more interesting to you, but I think even its subject matter is of little interest to most people on this forum. I don't have the formal references for these studies available right now. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [Bulk] Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??
The 1/3 2/3 thingy...speculation more than reality...right? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 13:47 Subject: [Bulk] Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ?? John, the concept of the fall and original sin is basic 101 theology. Unfortunately, many of the modern theologians ignore the subject completely, so it might appear to you to be only an assumption. Not true. There is much literature on this, so much so that I hardly know which to point you toward. I just did a quick search and found the following Catholic article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm You might start there, but there is a whole lot more out there. The basic concept is very sound. Death is related to sin, and it is believed that death as well as sin passed upon men through Adam's fall. There also is observed a heightened propensity for sin in man because man universally falls into sin. In contrast, two-thirds of the heavenly creatures did not sin. In modern times, the idea is attacked by the theory of evolution, which leads some theologians to think that death was not introduced into the world through Adam, but rather Adam was a major development in the evolutionary scale as man progresses towards immortality and perfection. If death was not introduced to mankind by Adam, then neither was sin. If that is true, then there was no sin of Adam which condemned mankind into a fallen state with a propensity toward sin. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ?? And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by Judy. In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking concerning the generational curse is a huge problem as well. As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with the event of the fall. In fact, the fall is only possible because of a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience. How is that not true? I have said this several times before and I say it again: in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the theology of the fall. Does such exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !! I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to gimmick theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper entitled A Theology of the 'Fall' or In Defense of the 'Fall' or The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth, or .. well , you get the picture. Currently, it appears to me that the Fall is an assumption , even in Barth !! Understand, I have been in this theological persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read. Actually, much is an understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without success. jd -- Original message -- From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having a fallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction happening. He is 'bending human nature back', purifying it, by his obedient life, his steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I remember TFT insisting that wron g views of who Jesus was always end up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or both). D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree
[TruthTalk] Fw: Movies page
- Original Message - From: John D Wilson To: Lance Muir Sent: January 21, 2006 17:01 Subject: Movies page http://www.ransomfellowship.org/Movies.html Good to talk with you today; as always! John
