[TruthTalk] Perry
Perry do you think DavH is speaking the truth here? - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk Sent: 3/12/2006 1:29:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian? with whoever will listenDAVEH: LOLDo you suppose anybody is really listening, Bishop! :-) How long have you known Deegan and Moore DAVEH: I joined TT less than a year after DavidM founded it. I think it was a year or two later that Carroll joined, but I could be off on that. Kevin came in a bit later, as I remember.how much closer to converting are you now -- after hearing them "preach" for low these many yearsDAVEH: I think I am right on the edge. ;-) Seriously John, I made the statement when I came in to TT that I was LDS and did not join TT with the intention to be persuaded to leave Mormonism. I wanted everybody to know up front that not hear to play that game with them--that I'm interested in pursuing another religio n. I have made my position clear several times, but despite doing so some TTers feel compelled to try to convert me away from Mormonism anyway. Apparently some have gotten their noses bent out of shape when they find out that I do not want to subscribe to their theory that LDS theology is wrong. I think DavidM understood me loud and clear after our initial discussions. Others are not nearly so perceptive, and seem to get frustrated that their illogical tactics fail to persuade me to change. What some have said is that they pray for me. I am sincere in telling you I do appreciate that, as I am sure they pray for my eternal welfare, and I do not take that lightly. Contrary to what I'm sure they expect, I do believe that (the answer to) their prayers are one reason I feel no compulsion to change. In fact, I believe their prayers have been answered to the contrary. Despite there being many unflattering things posted about LDS theology and myself, I remain quite comfortable in my LDS rooted beliefs of Jesus and his Father in Heaven. While this may rankle some, I feel that I should attribute that at least in part to the prayers of some TTers! Soif you've prayed for meI sincerely THANK YOU. It reinforces my belief in the power of prayer.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DH -- it's time we stop meeting this way. You over there with your dialogue with Kevin and me with whoever will listen. two old farts fighting nappy time !! How long have you known Deegan and Moore and how much closer to convertin are you now -- after hearing them "preach" for low these many years? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Do you see Jesus & Paul using your Dictionary definition of Christian?DAVEH: Some time ago, it was me (LDS in general) being accused by TTers of changing definitions to suit our (LDS) needs. Now it seems you want to do the same thing, Kevin. If you don't want to use the conventional dictionary definition of Christian, then it seems prudent to give us (TTers) your own definitionplease.Kevin Deegan wrote: Do you see Jesus & Paul using your Dictionary definition of Christian?Under this definition then, a decieved one who follows ANTI Christ is truly a Christian!1) He truly Believes he is worshipping Jesus Christ2) He truly believes the one he is following was sent by God3) He follows his teachings and exampleBut in reality he is a hell bound sinner.Help me contextualize, this apparent contradictionDavid Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Judy wrote:> What reason would anyone on TT have> to assume that a lifelong Mormon is also> a Christian?Following is how my dictionary defines a Christian:Chris·tiannoun (plural Chris·tians)1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to follow his teachings and exampleIf we accept the secular definition of believer as somebody who believes in the teachings of a particular religious faith, then from my perspective , Mormonism falls into this category of Christian. This does not mean that they have the right belief system, or that any of them will be saved. It simply places them in the Christian category, as a religious sect that is centered on the idea that Jesus Christ is the Savior sent by God to save humanity. There are false sects within Christianity, and I think the Mor mon sects are among them.David Miller.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
As you like. From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:59:00 -0800 DAVEH: Does that mean I should reconsider thinking of you as a hypocritical Christian? :-) Charles Perry Locke wrote: I did and I do. But, with your aging selective memory, you probably would not recall that :-) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:12:56 -0800 *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references* DAVEH:If you knew you did such Perry, then did you consider reprimanding yourself as you might reprimand another TTer for a similar transgression?IOWDo you hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others? Charles Perry Locke wrote: As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references*, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. -- ~~~ 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: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
DAVEH: Does that mean I should reconsider thinking of you as a hypocritical Christian? :-) Charles Perry Locke wrote: I did and I do. But, with your aging selective memory, you probably would not recall that :-) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:12:56 -0800 *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references* DAVEH:If you knew you did such Perry, then did you consider reprimanding yourself as you might reprimand another TTer for a similar transgression?IOWDo you hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others? Charles Perry Locke wrote: As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references*, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. -- ~~~ 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
I did and I do. But, with your aging selective memory, you probably would not recall that :-) From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:12:56 -0800 *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references* DAVEH:If you knew you did such Perry, then did you consider reprimanding yourself as you might reprimand another TTer for a similar transgression?IOWDo you hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others? Charles Perry Locke wrote: As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. *There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references*, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. -- ~~~ 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references DAVEH: If you knew you did such Perry, then did you consider reprimanding yourself as you might reprimand another TTer for a similar transgression? IOWDo you hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others? Charles Perry Locke wrote: As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. -- ~~~ 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] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
Ouch, Lance. Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for KISS, Perry. Take care lest Dean show up a YOUR door. It is the 'OTHER THAN' that I'm speaking of, Perry. Speaking of STUPID (you were weren't you?), your engagement with the Mormons on TT is petulant, pedantic and, lacking any prophetic component whatsoever. As to your choice of 'obtuse' over 'abstruse' the last linguist I spoke with said that you are incorrect. As to 'intelligence', I lay claim to none and, continue to prove it with every post. Lastly, beloved moderator, should you continue to choose to carry on your engagement with our Mormon friends, might you at least address matters of some substance? L Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
RE: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HEMODERATES
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/11/2005 10:57:44 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HEMODERATES Thanks for KISS, Perry. Take care lest Dean show up a YOUR door. cd: Yeah as soon as I research the "KISS" word then I can come and shake you hand. It is the 'OTHER THAN' that I'm speaking of, Perry. Speaking of STUPID (you were weren't you?), your engagement with the Mormons on TT is petulant, pedantic and, lacking any prophetic component whatsoever. As to your choice of 'obtuse' over 'abstruse' the last linguist I spoke with said that you are incorrect. cd: The linguist must also be Canadian. As to 'intelligence', I lay claim to none and, continue to prove it with every post. cd: And who said you had no discernment? Lastly, beloved moderator, should you continue to choose to carry on your engagement with our Mormon friends, might you at least address matters of some substance? cd: How when there is no substance to Mormonism? L
Re: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
COURTESY Perry. Do you actually read what's posted on TT? DEAN for instance, ever read him? Kevin for another instance, ever read him? I come off like Mr. Manners beside these two. It's the 'ox goring thingy' isn't it. The enemies of your enemies (MORMONS) are your friends. Make all the smart remarks you wish to Perry but, IMO, theological 'arm wrestling' is a waste of time. It's your time, Perry. Waste all of it that you wish. - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: December 11, 2005 12:03 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES >From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Congrats, Lance, I KNEW YOU COULD DO IT! You ansered my question in 1 post, despite all Thanks for KISS, Perry. Take care lest Dean show up a YOUR door. Dean probably understands what KISS means, and I do not think I have anything to worry about. It is the 'OTHER THAN' that I'm speaking of, Perry. Speaking of STUPID (you were weren't you?), your engagement with the Mormons on TT is petulant, pedantic and, lacking any prophetic component whatsoever. No, I was not speaking of "STUPID", I was speaking of "KEEP IT SIMPLE". But 1) you probably would have not gotten my drift if I had typed "KIS", and 2) it is a very common term that simply means, "don't make it any more complicated than it has to be." But, since you are seeking ammo against me, I would expect you to focus on that one word. As to your choice of 'obtuse' over 'abstruse' the last linguist I spoke with said that you are incorrect. Twist it any way you want, Lance. My meaning is that you do not answer questions directly. Abstruse implies that your responses cannot be understood. That is not what I am saying here (althought that, too, is often true). And, yes, I am sure you had a conversation with a linguist and intimately discussed the comparative uses of abstruse and obtuse. As to 'intelligence', I lay claim to none and, continue to prove it with every post. You speak down to people on this forum every day, Lance, from a position that assumes your intelligence and everyone elses igorance. Lastly, beloved moderator, should you continue to choose to carry on your engagement with our Mormon friends, might you at least address matters of some substance? Lance, as much as I tire of your cynicism, put downs, ad hokminems, and evasive responsesl, I would not think of asking you not to post on TT, except in the case of the use of ad himinems. So, learn to use your delete key and you will not be bothered. As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. Finally, when you respond to a post it is courteous to include a clip of the item to which you are responding. L P -- "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] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Congrats, Lance, I KNEW YOU COULD DO IT! You ansered my question in 1 post, despite all Thanks for KISS, Perry. Take care lest Dean show up a YOUR door. Dean probably understands what KISS means, and I do not think I have anything to worry about. It is the 'OTHER THAN' that I'm speaking of, Perry. Speaking of STUPID (you were weren't you?), your engagement with the Mormons on TT is petulant, pedantic and, lacking any prophetic component whatsoever. No, I was not speaking of "STUPID", I was speaking of "KEEP IT SIMPLE". But 1) you probably would have not gotten my drift if I had typed "KIS", and 2) it is a very common term that simply means, "don't make it any more complicated than it has to be." But, since you are seeking ammo against me, I would expect you to focus on that one word. As to your choice of 'obtuse' over 'abstruse' the last linguist I spoke with said that you are incorrect. Twist it any way you want, Lance. My meaning is that you do not answer questions directly. Abstruse implies that your responses cannot be understood. That is not what I am saying here (althought that, too, is often true). And, yes, I am sure you had a conversation with a linguist and intimately discussed the comparative uses of abstruse and obtuse. As to 'intelligence', I lay claim to none and, continue to prove it with every post. You speak down to people on this forum every day, Lance, from a position that assumes your intelligence and everyone elses igorance. Lastly, beloved moderator, should you continue to choose to carry on your engagement with our Mormon friends, might you at least address matters of some substance? Lance, as much as I tire of your cynicism, put downs, ad hokminems, and evasive responsesl, I would not think of asking you not to post on TT, except in the case of the use of ad himinems. So, learn to use your delete key and you will not be bothered. As for my attacks on promoters of mormonism, I have explained that is is not the MESSENGER that I am attacking, but the ORIGINATOR of the messages. There have been times when I have failed to make the distinction and used ad-hominem references, but that certainly is not the rule with my anti-mormonism posts. Finally, when you respond to a post it is courteous to include a clip of the item to which you are responding. L P -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] PERRY DIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGES ATTACKING ON THE FORUM HE MODERATES
Thanks for KISS, Perry. Take care lest Dean show up a YOUR door. It is the 'OTHER THAN' that I'm speaking of, Perry. Speaking of STUPID (you were weren't you?), your engagement with the Mormons on TT is petulant, pedantic and, lacking any prophetic component whatsoever. As to your choice of 'obtuse' over 'abstruse' the last linguist I spoke with said that you are incorrect. As to 'intelligence', I lay claim to none and, continue to prove it with every post. Lastly, beloved moderator, should you continue to choose to carry on your engagement with our Mormon friends, might you at least address matters of some substance? L
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
cd:If one is not being examined by Satan them He feels there is no need as he already has that person. DAVEH: Your wisdom continues to astound me, Dean. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire to be examined under Satan microscope, which is why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons. cd:If one is not being examined by Satan them He feels there is no need as he already has that person. I would much rather be anti-Mormon then Anti- Christian as you are. DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple? Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 9:56:08 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire to be examined under Satan microscope, which is why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons. cd:If one is not being examined by Satan them He feels there is no need as he already has that person. I would much rather be anti-Mormon then Anti- Christian as you are. DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
It is not because you do not have good answers for some of the questions? it is not because some things do not fit nicely inside of your theological house of cards and might jeopardize the structure?Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire to be examined under Satan microscope, which is why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons. DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 8:09:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Suppose it was secretly Satan that is worshipped. Would you expect to be told so? cd: No because he is afraid of the light.Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 7:00:07 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground. cd: I imagine from you point of view it would be better to call DaH a brother and preach God loves everybody then we can sing Com-baa-rya and every thing will be ok -The only problem is that is not Biblical.How can one teach the bible and leave Satan and Hell out of it?Unless you too have one of those newfangled bibles that removes those parts-If not then you are happy (and amused) preaching a half gospel? If 2/3 thirds of Christs ministry had to do with hell I can do the same. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
maybe you Three should start a Church yourselves. Trinity UNbelievers ChapelLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.- Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Sorry Judy, Lance is BUSY watching TVJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now this is "comedy" time - for sure. JD reflecting a combination of exegesis, exposition, and theological instinct? You have just categorized the things you hold most dear and JD reflects them when he will not even tell the truth on TT? For your sake Lance I pray there will come a time when you acknowledge and see your need for what you criticize about Dean. For now it's to be expected because these things are considered foolishness by the worldly minded - better to be entertained by SNL than to concern oneself with spiritual deception and lay down one's life for the lost. judyt On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:00:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire to be examined under Satan microscope, which is why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons. DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple? Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Those rare treats are much like water...all wet! Terry Lance Muir wrote: CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Suppose it was secretly Satan that is worshipped. Would you expect to be told so?Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Now this is "comedy" time - for sure. JD reflecting a combination of exegesis, exposition, and theological instinct? You have just categorized the things you hold most dear and JD reflects them when he will not even tell the truth on TT? For your sake Lance I pray there will come a time when you acknowledge and see your need for what you criticize about Dean. For now it's to be expected because these things are considered foolishness by the worldly minded - better to be entertained by SNL than to concern oneself with spiritual deception and lay down one's life for the lost. judyt On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:00:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground. From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred. Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
cd: Both are in the questions below brother:-) - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/10/2005 8:15:53 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Do you refer to the usage of Lucifer or Bible translations?Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: cd: Kevin it would help me understand you better if you would answer the questions I presented in the below stringer. This isn't any type of trap but honest questions to help me understand truth-or you to better understand that truth we seek on a different level-on things one has a problem discussing elsewhere. I realize there is great passion in this subject -and where there is great passion the can also be great error. Yours in Christ, Carroll Moore - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/31/2005 7:37:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that the word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASV is a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helps us understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that we understand more about ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used. The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB and compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS) as you did with Strong's on Isaiah- b ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give us a version that uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water and I would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to what I am saying. Thank bro. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"! Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the o
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Do you refer to the usage of Lucifer or Bible translations?Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: cd: Kevin it would help me understand you better if you would answer the questions I presented in the below stringer. This isn't any type of trap but honest questions to help me understand truth-or you to better understand that truth we seek on a different level-on things one has a problem discussing elsewhere. I realize there is great passion in this subject -and where there is great passion the can also be great error. Yours in Christ, Carroll Moore - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/31/2005 7:37:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that the word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASV is a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helps us understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that we understand more about ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used. The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB and compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS) as you did with Strong's on Isaiah- b ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give us a version that uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water and I would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to what I am saying. Thank bro. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"! Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Very similar to the Mormon Temple CHANT "PAY LAY ALE". http://www.singlesaints.com/lds-single-forum/4831 The hebrew 'pale' means 'marvelous', and the w
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
cd: Kevin it would help me understand you better if you would answer the questions I presented in the below stringer. This isn't any type of trap but honest questions to help me understand truth-or you to better understand that truth we seek on a different level-on things one has a problem discussing elsewhere. I realize there is great passion in this subject -and where there is great passion the can also be great error. Yours in Christ, Carroll Moore - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/31/2005 7:37:04 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know cd: This is real good information brother and I am saving it for future use-but we somehow are miscommunication. I am not saying that Jesus isn't the Morning Star. You are giving me a lot of Info that points out whom Lucifer is-but I am of the opinion that these sources you gave have been tainted by a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12 long ago-and others have also incorporated this mistake into their religions-and if they want to rename Satan then the sin is no different -still sin to worship him or invoke him by any name. I find no evidence in that passage of Isaiah 14:12 that it is speaking about Satan -I do find evidence that the passage is talking about a Babylonian king who had a name that was compared to the morning star-who fell (ie. possible writting on wall? If men were stars then he was considered greatest among men so he would be the brightest star-the Morning star). In the information below that you gave-Strongs itself said that the word "heylel #1966" (notice the small letter s-a name begins with a large letter-more personal) can also mean "morning star. Brother Kevin I am not attacking the KJV-I have one and have preached out of it for many years and still do so -at times. I do not believe the KJV to be wrong. What I do believe is that the NASV is a version written and given by God in our language so that some meaning are clearer. If I took the KJV and interpreted it into the Cherokee Indian language you wouldn't have no problem with that so why is there a problem with the NASV? I have also studied other versions and have found all of then lacking as you have-but I believe the NASV is a gift from God that helps us understand Pauls writings more clearly. The truth brother is that we understand more about ancient Geek then we did when the Vulgate MSS was used. The only way that you can claim the KJ to be the only word of God is to take each difference from the KJV and the NASB and compare then to the ancient wordings (ie. MSS) as you did with Strong's on Isaiah- b ut I can save you some time because I have done so for two yrs now. How many people have came up to us while on the street and said that they couldn't understand the KJV? I have the belief that God wants his word understood-so why would he give us a version that uses a language hundreds of years old? What did the people use before KJ-and why aren't we using the Genevia Bible now ?Please slow down brother and answer these questions-I know you would charge hell with a bucket of water and I would do so with you-but for the sake of truth slow down and try to listen to what I am saying. Thank bro. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/30/2005 11:38:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know In Greek Helios is the sun god. In German, this became hellen, from which came the word helder, meaning, "clear" or "shiny." But there is also a sense of "blinding," that is, blinded by the light, in this; and thus helel entered English as "hell," a covered place, a place of darkness as if blinded, a place "far off from God." So, the source of our word hell is the helel referred to in Hebrew. The latin Lucifer matches HELel in meaning and in character! helel, can be translated "shining one"! Lucifer is also a (Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force) deity in the Voodoo religions The word Lucifer is from latin lucis (lightgenitive of lux) and ferre meaning "to bear or bring" Thus Lucifer the Light Bearer! The Angel of Light. The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Very similar to the Mormon Temple CHANT "PAY LAY ALE". http://www.singlesaints.com/lds-single-forum/4831 The hebrew 'pale' means 'marvelous', and the word 'ale' means 'true god or false god.' Lucifer is the god of this world (statement in
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? Let Dave answer that: "DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin"Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/8/2005 2:10:52 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism is not wrong. Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know of any???Kevin Deegan wrote: Suppose I found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote: How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist? As far as the Baptists: 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John! Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them. Ask a Methodist, John Wesley Ask a Mormon Joe Smith Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope" Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL Who founded the baptist church? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regard the material you give? If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/8/2005 2:10:52 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism is not wrong. Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know of any???Kevin Deegan wrote: Suppose I found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote: How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist? As far as the Baptists: 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John! Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them. Ask a Methodist, John Wesley Ask a Mormon Joe Smith Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope" Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL Who founded the baptist church? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had t
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Anyone can steal a word. Consider the "Church of Jesus Christ" "Church of Christ" meant to imply they are the ONE! cath·o·lic (kãth'ə-lĭk, kãth'lĭk) adj. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found (Scientific American). Including or concerning all humankind; universal: what was of catholic rather than national interest (J.A. Froude). Catholic Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church. Of or relating to the universal Christian church. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Perhaps it is similar to Catholicism being talked about prior to the RCC being founded.Kevin Deegan wrote: And what in the world is a Cardinal in 1524 doing talking about something that did not exist at that time, but was over 100 years in the future? -- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Maine is now Southern??? Dave Hansen wrote: DAVEH: You tell me, Kevin. You claim to know the roots. I can only quote that which I've learned.that the First Southern Baptist Church. was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
And I suppose the fact that the AMERICAN Baptists were founded in the US proves that Baptists did not exist in Europe too!Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: You tell me, Kevin. You claim to know the roots. I can only quote that which I've learned.that the First Southern Baptist Church. was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...from my limited searching on the net. IF that is not correct, please tell us who the real founder is, and when he founded it, Kevin.Kevin Deegan wrote: And who was the founder of the Baptist church?Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make?But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you should have read on..."The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, so la fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s."Notice that first line?On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ.Perry>From: Dave Hansen >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know>Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800>>DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? >DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI>>/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group >baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them >from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the >denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the >term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the >groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European >movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most >common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the >early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as >Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accep ted sense of >the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others >consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers >who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church >historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between >anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later >anabaptist groups._/>>..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are >Protestants.-- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
can you nail down an exact time when it was authored? When the Apostles put their pen to "paper"Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes?DAVEH: This may surprise you, Kevinbut, I do not see him as being the author of the TD. I view him as more the promoter, motivator and facilitatoror perhaps catalyst. Does that make any sense? Who do you view as the originator of the TD, Kevin? And can you nail down an exact time when it was authored?Kevin Deegan wrote: Question DH, Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes? If not it was originated at this time correct? What was the date of the origination of the T doctrine? >From: Dave Hansen >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know>Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800>>*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*>>DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and >Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but >have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered >with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the >apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf >was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening >in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not ma ke that claim. From >our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich >is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism.>>David Miller wrote:>>>CD wrote:>>>>>... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back>>>to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought>>>under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national>>>movement under the proceding Emperors?>>>>>>*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* >>The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is >>that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of >>Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the >>Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, >>there were about 150 bis hops, with probably 5 being prominent because of >>the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have >>primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the >>meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what >>Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was >>decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of >>Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. >>This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome >>to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was >>split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A >>lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a >>short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two >>popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".>>>>The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, >>and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches >>than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears >>no resemblance to Constantine's banner.>>>>Peace be with you.>>David Miller.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DH says "just assuming that you are somehow connected?""From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time frame" Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions.DAVEH: Seems to me that you are the one who needs to show your roots, Kevin. I've shown you where the Southern Baptists had Protestant roots. If yours are not Protestant, then to where do you trace your roots? And...can you detail the linage of those roots, or are you just assuming that you are somehow connected? BTWI do not recall you explaining to which faction of Christianity you belong. Do you have a denominational affiliation? And if so, what is it?Kevin Deegan wrote: I do not trace my baptist roots back to Constantine, nor to the Protestants. I have provided quotes dated before the reformation (thus they are NOT Protestants) Those same quotes atribute the baptists back to almost the time of Christ. You see no problem with tracing LDS "roots" back to the apostles without a shred of evidence. Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions. Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. David Miller wrote: CD wrote: ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors? All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope.& nbsp; In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -- ~~~ 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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
If Baptists did not exist in 1524 What is a Cardinal doing talking about them? Well I guess if quotes about a supposedly non existant group (baptists) is not enough, I do not know what would be ***SIGH***Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism is not wrong. Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know of any???Kevin Deegan wrote: Suppose I found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote: How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist? As far as the Baptists: 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John! Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them. Ask a Methodist, John Wesley Ask a Mormon Joe Smith Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope" Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL Who founded the baptist church? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not accept it though?Kevin Deegan wrote: I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts. Where was the break in authority DH? Who was the last
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. DAVEH: Thank you for lending a little more insight, Perry. FWIW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Baptist_Church .WIKI has a little to say about it that clarifies what I think Kevin has been implying. It seems. The leaders of what would become known as the Landmark movement were James Robinson Graves, James Madison Pendleton, and Amos Cooper Dayton (sometimes called the Great Triumvirate). ..lived in the mid 19th Century and fostered the notion that organization had its inception at the time of Jesus. Do you believe that as they do, Perry? Or...do you believe they were founded by the Great Triumvirate? As you know, Perry.my interest is in the Protestants. So, those Baptists who lay claim to Protestant roots are those who I tend to cast my focus. That there are small congregations or individuals who claim not to be Protestant don't capture my attention at this point. ButIf there are Baptists who are rooted in Protestantismthat's what I am curious about. Sothat Kevin (or you) are referring to small groups who are not associated with Protestantism is really not pertinent to my interests. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make? But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you should have read on... "The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, sola fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s." Notice that first line? On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ. Perry From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800 DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI /The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later anabaptist groups._/ ..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are Protestants. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
If it is not can we accuse you spreading lies? DAVEH: No Perry...you can only accuse me of believing a professed Christian. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, you say, "assuming the above website is correct." If it is not can we accuse you spreading lies? DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm Screven The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven. ..according to... http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm assuming the above website is correct. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: You tell me, Kevin. You claim to know the roots. I can only quote that which I've learned.that the First Southern Baptist Church. was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven. ..from my limited searching on the net. IF that is not correct, please tell us who the real founder is, and when he founded it, Kevin. Kevin Deegan wrote: And who was the founder of the Baptist church? Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make? But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you should have read on... "The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, so la fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s." Notice that first line? On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ. Perry >From: Dave Hansen >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know >Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800 > >DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? >DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI > >/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group >baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them >from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the >denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the >term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the >groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European >movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most >common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the >early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as >Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accep ted sense of >the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others >consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers >who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church >historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between >anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later >anabaptist groups._/ > >..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are >Protestants. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Perhaps it is similar to Catholicism being talked about prior to the RCC being founded. Kevin Deegan wrote: And what in the world is a Cardinal in 1524 doing talking about something that did not exist at that time, but was over 100 years in the future? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Doesn't matter what you've found, Kevin.either about when the LDS Church was founded, or how many folks were practicing theology in the form of baptists as you (or they) perceive them. I quoted you material that purports to be the roots of the Southern Baptist Church as being founded in Protestantism. If you want to claim they are wronggo ahead and make the claim. I'm merely trying to show that my understanding that modern day Baptists are rooted in Protestantism is not wrong. Now, if you know of a recognized group of Baptists that are not rooted in Protestantism, I'd sure like to know who they are. I do not know much about Baptists, and would like to know IF there are any such recognized non-Protestant Baptist Churches in existence. Do you know of any??? Kevin Deegan wrote: Suppose I found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm Screven The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven. ..according to... http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm assuming the above website is correct. Kevin Deegan wrote: How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist? As far as the Baptists: 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John! Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them. Ask a Methodist, John Wesley Ask a Mormon Joe Smith Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope" Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL Who founded the baptist church? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim? Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to. Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not accept it though? Kevin Deegan wrote:
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes? DAVEH: This may surprise you, Kevinbut, I do not see him as being the author of the TD. I view him as more the promoter, motivator and facilitatoror perhaps catalyst. Does that make any sense? Who do you view as the originator of the TD, Kevin? And can you nail down an exact time when it was authored? Kevin Deegan wrote: Question DH, Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes? If not it was originated at this time correct? What was the date of the origination of the T doctrine? >From: Dave Hansen >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800 > >*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* > >DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and >Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but >have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered >with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the >apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf >was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening >in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not ma ke that claim. From >our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich >is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. > >David Miller wrote: > >>CD wrote: >> >>>... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back >>>to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought >>>under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national >>>movement under the proceding Emperors? >> >> >>*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* >>The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is >>that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of >>Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the >>Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, >>there were about 150 bis hops, with probably 5 being prominent because of >>the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have >>primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the >>meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what >>Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was >>decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of >>Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. >>This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome >>to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was >>split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A >>lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a >>short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two >>popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". >> >>The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, >>and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches >>than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears >>no resemblance to Constantine's banner. >> >>Peace be with you. >>David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions. DAVEH: Seems to me that you are the one who needs to show your roots, Kevin. I've shown you where the Southern Baptists had Protestant roots. If yours are not Protestant, then to where do you trace your roots? And...can you detail the linage of those roots, or are you just assuming that you are somehow connected? BTWI do not recall you explaining to which faction of Christianity you belong. Do you have a denominational affiliation? And if so, what is it? Kevin Deegan wrote: I do not trace my baptist roots back to Constantine, nor to the Protestants. I have provided quotes dated before the reformation (thus they are NOT Protestants) Those same quotes atribute the baptists back to almost the time of Christ. You see no problem with tracing LDS "roots" back to the apostles without a shred of evidence. Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions. Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. David Miller wrote: CD wrote: ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors? All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope.& nbsp; In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
One substance? So you want to discuss "homoousios"? "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" Col. 2:9 "I and the Father are one" John 10:30 "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me" John 14:11 "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself'' 2Cor. 5:19Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. But from my perspective, you are ignoring that Scripture includes more than just the Bible. To me, your comment...You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. .seems awfully shortsighted to limit Scripture as many Protestants do.. Kevin also implied.the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible.and I would ask you the same question I asked him. Where does the Bible suggest that Jesus and God are of one substance?Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct. Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement, because to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine! Almost ALL of it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible. You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. Perry -- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
The Trinity Doctrine existed long before Constantine 50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript 74 AD The Letter of Barnabas 80 AD Hermas 140 AD Aristides 150 AD Justin Martyr 150 AD Polycarp of Smyrna 160 AD Mathetes 170 AD Tatian the Syrian 177 AD Athenagoras 177 AD Melito of Sardis 180 AD Theophilus of Antioch 180 AD Irenaeus 190 AD Clement Of Alexandria 200 AD Tertullian 200 AD Hippolytus 225 AD Origen 235 AD Novatian 250 AD Ignatius of Antioch 253 AD Cyprian of Carthage 262 AD Dionysius 262 AD Gregory the Wonder-worker 305 AD Methodius 305 AD Arnobius 307 AD Lactantius Facts are stubborn things: http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htmDavid Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH wrote:> For anyone to think they were not heavily biased by their RCC affiliation > stretches the imagination.I would not argue that. I agree with you that the bias existed for them to accept the Trinity, just as the bias existed for them to accept transubstantiation, infant baptism, purgatory, indulgences, the authority of the clergy, etc.DaveH wrote:> As I see it, their break with the RCC was based on their differences of > opinion. If they had studied the TD and not found it distasteful to their > beliefs, then there would be no reason to break from that tradition.Agreed. My point is only that they did not accept the Trinity only because of their bias. They studied it out pretty thoroughly.DAVEH:> I have no doubt that he did study it himself, but his acceptance of it > does not change its nature.which as I see it was a politically > motivated doctrine of obfuscation. I would not be surprised if Calvin > felt the need to retain it for the same reason. From his perspective, > anybody teaching against it might be a real threat to his religious > foundation.We have been over the history before. Your argument that the Trininty came about because of politics is faulty. The Trinity Doctrine existed long before Constantine, and it was politically unacceptable to believe in the Trinity for generations after Constantine.DAVEH wrote:> Whilst the people came from a Protestant background, I don't see why you > would think the theology did likewise. There were doctrines (TD, infant > baptism, etc) that were not a part of Biblical Christianity that the RCC > adopted and some of the Reformers henceforth adopted. I don't see any of > that in Mormonism.do you? I'm perhaps too close to LDS theology to > see such, but if you do I'd appreciate you sharing it.My comment was that from a HISTORICAL point of view, Mormonism is a branch of Protestant Christianity. From a theological point of view, Mormonism differs significantly from the majority of Protestant Christianity. Nevertheless, there is still quite a bit of commonality. You still preach Jesus Christ as Savior of the world, you evangelize by sharing the gospel, you baptize converts, you practice the laying on of hands for ordination, you have similar meetings in the sense of singing and teaching.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
David Miller wrote: All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. DAVEH wrote: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. Again, I'm talking about from the perspective of historical Christianity. You may not want to trace your roots through Roman Catholicism back to the time of Constantine, but any historian can do it, and you could too if you allowed yourself to do it. What you are saying here, however, is that you want to skip over history. Your idea that Mormonism is rooted in something prior to either Catholicism or Protestantism is nothing but fantasy. It is like the schizophrenic claiming that he is Napoleon or God. And you wonder why most Christians do not consider you guys to be Christian? Here you are practically admitting that you are not Christian. :-) Can't you see that? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH wrote: For anyone to think they were not heavily biased by their RCC affiliation stretches the imagination. I would not argue that. I agree with you that the bias existed for them to accept the Trinity, just as the bias existed for them to accept transubstantiation, infant baptism, purgatory, indulgences, the authority of the clergy, etc. DaveH wrote: As I see it, their break with the RCC was based on their differences of opinion. If they had studied the TD and not found it distasteful to their beliefs, then there would be no reason to break from that tradition. Agreed. My point is only that they did not accept the Trinity only because of their bias. They studied it out pretty thoroughly. DAVEH: I have no doubt that he did study it himself, but his acceptance of it does not change its nature.which as I see it was a politically motivated doctrine of obfuscation. I would not be surprised if Calvin felt the need to retain it for the same reason. From his perspective, anybody teaching against it might be a real threat to his religious foundation. We have been over the history before. Your argument that the Trininty came about because of politics is faulty. The Trinity Doctrine existed long before Constantine, and it was politically unacceptable to believe in the Trinity for generations after Constantine. DAVEH wrote: Whilst the people came from a Protestant background, I don't see why you would think the theology did likewise. There were doctrines (TD, infant baptism, etc) that were not a part of Biblical Christianity that the RCC adopted and some of the Reformers henceforth adopted. I don't see any of that in Mormonism.do you? I'm perhaps too close to LDS theology to see such, but if you do I'd appreciate you sharing it. My comment was that from a HISTORICAL point of view, Mormonism is a branch of Protestant Christianity. From a theological point of view, Mormonism differs significantly from the majority of Protestant Christianity. Nevertheless, there is still quite a bit of commonality. You still preach Jesus Christ as Savior of the world, you evangelize by sharing the gospel, you baptize converts, you practice the laying on of hands for ordination, you have similar meetings in the sense of singing and teaching. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH wrote: If the faith of a believer is all that is needed to gain the authority to act in God's behalf, then do you recognize the faith of the believers of the RCC? Orhow about the faith of the believers in Mormonism? Whether or not there are believers either in the RCC or Mormonism is hotly debated among Protestant believers. The belief that authority rests in the church hierarchy frustrates faith, and thereby frustrates receiving authority directly from God. One cannot have faith in Jesus Christ and in an institutional structure at the same time. I have to admit that the possibility of Joseph Smith truly having authority with God was very high in my opinion when I first studied him, for the very simple reason that his faith clearly was not in the institution of Christianity. This would have put him in a position to truly receive authority from Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, my studies of his teachings have shown him to be another charlatan. DAVEH wrote: ... it seems illogical to me for you to draw that conclusion due to the apostles previous receipt of the power of God as described at the time Jesus ordained them. Don't you believe that the apostles already had the power of God prior to Jesus giving Peter the keys in Mt 16? IF your scenario is correct, Jesus would not have had to give Peter the authority in the first placeit would have been automatic due to Peter's belief. That's like trying to say that an employee automatically gets a promotion at his job just because he has faithful. No, the faithfulness brings about the added authority, but it is not automatic. The Lord confers it upon a person as they show themselves faithful. DaveH wrote: Yet Jesus obviously gave something to Peter at that time due to his belief. Logically, my assertion that it was a special commission (keys) makes more sense. ButI do have my LDS bias that reinforces that notion. I just fail to see how you would build your case on such a passage. Are there other passages that support your perspective? You speak as if I do not believe in ordination. I think you misunderstand my perspective. The way you characterize me, I would not find any value in a wedding ceremony, because all you need is love, and then voila, the couple is automatically married and there is no need to exchange vows or have witnesses. This is not my perspective at all. As for another passage, consider John 14:12-14. John 14:12-14 (12) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (13) And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (14) If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. David Miller wote: The entire church is to inherit the keys to the kingdom of heaven. DAVEH: As you know, that seems to be an illogical conclusion from my perspective. Those keys were only given to Peter at that time, and to conclude that it applies to anybody with faith would bring a lot of confusion due to many believers of faith of different religious persuasions may be at odds with how they handle those keys. Does that make any sense, DavidM? Your view of the church is different than mine. I see a church in agreement. You see a church divided. The church *IS* the body of Christ. Therefore, how can it not have the keys of the kingdom? DH wrote: Perhaps I should ask you how you define keys? The keys are that which a believer receives which enables him or her to bring the kingdom of God into reality in this present world. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
I do not trace my baptist roots back to Constantine, nor to the Protestants. I have provided quotes dated before the reformation (thus they are NOT Protestants) Those same quotes atribute the baptists back to almost the time of Christ. You see no problem with tracing LDS "roots" back to the apostles without a shred of evidence. Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions. Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. David Miller wrote: CD wrote: ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors? All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Suppose I found a quote about the "Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints" dated 1730? Since there was no LDS Church in 1730 that would be quite a find, to say the least! Here we have a quote from 1524 identifying the Baptists, to attribute the founding of the Baptists to a later date is ludicrous! If Baptists were founded in 1600, then Martin Luther was a Mormon! 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm ScrevenThe Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven...according to...http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htmassuming the above website is correct.Kevin Deegan wrote: How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist? As far as the Baptists: 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John! Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them. Ask a Methodist, John Wesley Ask a Mormon Joe Smith Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope" Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL Who founded the baptist church? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim?Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not accept it though?Kevin Deegan wrote: I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts. Where was the break in authority DH? Who was the last group to Hold it? David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote:>> Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD.>> The RCC came along generations later.CD wrote:> Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad.Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054, when it split away from the churches of the East. About 500 years later it splintered into the various Protestant groups.Peace be with you.-- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Ashamed? Mormon Doctrine on Deity, pp. 42-43; B. H. Roberts. Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be God of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any change come over our countenances when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that anyone at all capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe---the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means---not shame--- for the doctrine Brigham Young taught.Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave,I went right to the source, as you have asked me to do many times. I asked you about raising arms to the square and what "Pale Ale" means. If you refuse to answer, perhaps it is because either you are ashamed that you do not know what you are chanting, (or maybe you do know!). So, set me straight on this "pale ale" thing, Dave. I cannot do what you ask if those who "have the truth" won't share it!Perry>From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know>Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:15:47 -0800>>*If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.*>>DAVEH: I've tried to do that in times past, Perry. But despite what I >say, you believe what you want to, irregardless of the truth. Your intent >seems not to care about what LDS theology teaches, but rather you want to >destroy LDS theology. Am I perceiving your agenda correctly, Perry?>>Charles Perry Locke wrote:>>>*If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.* You >>will not talk about Temple rituals because you have taken oaths not to, >>and have been told of the penalties that you will endure of you reveal >>them, like having your throat cut from ear to ear, or having you belly cut >>and your intestines spilled on the ground (if I am in error heere please >>correct me by revealing tthe correct penalties), just like the Masons (who >>incorporated gripd, signs, tokens, and epnealties long before JS was a >>mason) from which parts of the mormon temple ceremonies were copied. So, I >>must rely on ex-mormons who have been brought into the light, left the >>mormon cult, and now reveal the rituals that are performed inside the >>temple. The mormon temple rites are no different than any secret >>organization...the cultic structure is very obvious. So, if you don't know >>what "pay lay ale" means, then I guess I must turn to those who do, and >>will admit it.>>>> The only truth is the Word of God, Dave, something the mormons pay lip >>service to, but set aside for the works of the false prophet JS. You can >>certainly tell me all day that I do not have the truth, but can you >>demonstrate that?>>>>Perry>>>>>>>>>>>DAVEH: It is posts like this that confirm my presumption that you lack >>>understanding, perception and truth, Perry. I understand your need to >>>/wing it/, so to speak, in an effort to by chance hit a soft spot in my >>>armor. Instead, as I see it by making incorrect assumptions, you are >>>simply proving your lack of insight.>>>>>>Charles Perry Locke wrote:>>>>>>>Dave,>>>>>>>> My ultimate concern is that if you are raising your hands and >>>>chanting words that you do not understand, you may be invoking that >>>>which you presume you are not. That is the key to whom you owe your >>>>allegiance. If you are not sure, or do not know exactly what that means, >>>>where it came from, what language it is in, and to whom you are praying >>>>when you do that, then when you get to the deepest part of your ritual, >>>>in the deepest part of your temple, and perform signs and chant those >>>>words, nothing else said or believed outside of that moment defines your >>>>religion. You are invoking who you invoke.>>>>>>>> On the other hand, if you know that you are invoking Satan, or anyone >>>>or anything other than God, and you wish to do that, then I have no >>>>argument with your faith. You are free to do that as long as you know >>>>what you are doing, and choose to continue it. (Actually, you are free >>>>to do it blindly, too, if y
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Question DH, Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes? If not it was originated at this time correct? What was the date of the origination of the T doctrine? >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know>Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800>>*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*>>DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and >Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but >have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered >with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the >apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf >was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening >in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From >our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich >is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism.>>David Miller wrote:>>>CD wrote:>>>>>... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back>>>to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought>>>under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national>>>movement under the proceding Emperors?>>>>>>*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* >>The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is >>that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of >>Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the >>Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, >>there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of >>the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have >>primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the >>meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what >>Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was >>decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of >>Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. >>This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome >>to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was >>split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A >>lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a >>short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two >>popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".>>>>The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, >>and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches >>than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears >>no resemblance to Constantine's banner.>>>>Peace be with you.>>David Miller.>>>>>>-->~~~>Dave Hansen>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.langlitz.com>~~~>If you wish to receive>things I find interesting,>I maintain six email lists...>JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,>STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.>--"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.orgIf 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
And what in the world is a Cardinal in 1524 doing talking about something that did not exist at that time, but was over 100 years in the future? Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave, you say, "assuming the above website is correct." If it is not can we accuse you spreading lies?>From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know>Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:51:03 -0800>>DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their >roots to the Rev Wm Screven>>The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine >by the Rev. William Screven.>>..according to...>>http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm>>assuming the above website is correct.>>Kevin Deegan wrote:>>>*How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not >>exist?*>>>>>>*As far as the Baptists:*>>>>*200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:*>>>>"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off >>with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in >>greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, /Letters, Apud Opera/, >>pp. 112, 113.)>>>>>>>>/*The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the >>Protestants! */>>>>*Sir Isaac Newton:* "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians >>that have never symbolized with Rome.">>>>>>>>*Mosheim (Lutheran historian):* "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, >>there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who >>adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists.">>>>>>>>*/Edinburg Cyclopedia/ (Presbyterian):* "It must have already occurred to >>our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were >>formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their >>leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.">>>>>>>>/*Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle >>John!*/>>>>>>>>Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded >>them.>>>>Ask a Methodist, John Wesley>>>>Ask a Mormon Joe Smith>>>>Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope">>>>Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther>>>>Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL>>>>Who founded the baptist church?>>>>>>*/Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:>>>> *What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist>> church going all the way back to John the Baptist?*>>>> DAVEH: Can that be done?>>>> You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least>> they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood>> authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar>> claim?>>>> Kevin Deegan wrote:>>>>> I don't accept fairy tales.>>> *What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist>>> church going all the way back to John the Baptist?* We would need>>> to have a history of that Church to go along with the names.>>> As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no>>> history that the RCC can point to.>>>>>> */Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:>>>>>> DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible)>>> possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are>>> certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived>>> after they (the Biblical apostles) died?>>>>>> The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was>>> then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can>>> presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that>>> lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not>>> accept it though?>>>>>> Kevin Deegan wrote:>>>>>>> I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory>>>> holds water after seeing these facts.>>>> Where was the break in authority DH?>>>> Who was the last group to Hold it?>>>>>>>>>>>> */David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:>>>>>>>> Kevin wrote:>>>> >> Besides th
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
And who was the founder of the Baptist church?Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make?But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you should have read on..."The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, sola fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s."Notice that first line?On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ.Perry>From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know>Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800>>DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? >DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI>>/The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group >baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them >from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the >denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the >term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the >groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European >movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most >common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the >early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as >Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of >the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others >consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers >who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church >historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between >anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later >anabaptist groups._/>>..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are >Protestants.--"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.orgIf 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Scripture includes more than just the Bible What does it include? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. But from my perspective, you are ignoring that Scripture includes more than just the Bible. To me, your comment...You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. .seems awfully shortsighted to limit Scripture as many Protestants do.. Kevin also implied.the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible.and I would ask you the same question I asked him. Where does the Bible suggest that Jesus and God are of one substance?Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct. Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement, because to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine! Almost ALL of it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible. You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. Perry -- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Dave, I went right to the source, as you have asked me to do many times. I asked you about raising arms to the square and what "Pale Ale" means. If you refuse to answer, perhaps it is because either you are ashamed that you do not know what you are chanting, (or maybe you do know!). So, set me straight on this "pale ale" thing, Dave. I cannot do what you ask if those who "have the truth" won't share it! Perry From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:15:47 -0800 *If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.* DAVEH: I've tried to do that in times past, Perry. But despite what I say, you believe what you want to, irregardless of the truth. Your intent seems not to care about what LDS theology teaches, but rather you want to destroy LDS theology. Am I perceiving your agenda correctly, Perry? Charles Perry Locke wrote: *If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight.* You will not talk about Temple rituals because you have taken oaths not to, and have been told of the penalties that you will endure of you reveal them, like having your throat cut from ear to ear, or having you belly cut and your intestines spilled on the ground (if I am in error heere please correct me by revealing tthe correct penalties), just like the Masons (who incorporated gripd, signs, tokens, and epnealties long before JS was a mason) from which parts of the mormon temple ceremonies were copied. So, I must rely on ex-mormons who have been brought into the light, left the mormon cult, and now reveal the rituals that are performed inside the temple. The mormon temple rites are no different than any secret organization...the cultic structure is very obvious. So, if you don't know what "pay lay ale" means, then I guess I must turn to those who do, and will admit it. The only truth is the Word of God, Dave, something the mormons pay lip service to, but set aside for the works of the false prophet JS. You can certainly tell me all day that I do not have the truth, but can you demonstrate that? Perry DAVEH: It is posts like this that confirm my presumption that you lack understanding, perception and truth, Perry. I understand your need to /wing it/, so to speak, in an effort to by chance hit a soft spot in my armor. Instead, as I see it by making incorrect assumptions, you are simply proving your lack of insight. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, My ultimate concern is that if you are raising your hands and chanting words that you do not understand, you may be invoking that which you presume you are not. That is the key to whom you owe your allegiance. If you are not sure, or do not know exactly what that means, where it came from, what language it is in, and to whom you are praying when you do that, then when you get to the deepest part of your ritual, in the deepest part of your temple, and perform signs and chant those words, nothing else said or believed outside of that moment defines your religion. You are invoking who you invoke. On the other hand, if you know that you are invoking Satan, or anyone or anything other than God, and you wish to do that, then I have no argument with your faith. You are free to do that as long as you know what you are doing, and choose to continue it. (Actually, you are free to do it blindly, too, if you wish. But if you are, pleading ignorance at your jusgement will not be a valid excuse, "...they [men] are without excuse" - Romans 1). You and millions of other mormons may not really know what is going on at that moment. You may be doing it just because someone told you that is the thing to do, or because you think, "If it happens in the temple it can't be wrong". Think again, Dave. Think about exactly what is it that you are doing and saying at that moment. If your leaders cannot answer the questions with certainty and proof of their meaning, rather than with side-steps and cute answers, then you just may be paying homage to something other than the God you think you are invoking. Do you know for sure? Your burning bosom can't answer that question. I will pray for your deliverance, and the deliverance of your family, and all mormons, that the veil of darkness will be lifted and the light of Jesus Christ will shine in. Perry -- ~~~ 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:/
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Dave, Other than the heresy of JS, you can not historically substantiate ANY of the following claim, "our religious roots predate that time frame". If you can, then do so. If you are going to ask me to rely on the claims made by an occultic treasure hunter, count me out. Your whole faith appears to be based on believing what JS said, and heartburn. No history. No archeology. No internal or external consistency. Aberrant translations of the book of the dead, revelations that favor the revelator and his friends (except for poor Emma!) and his philandering. And, who is Oliver Granger? (Inquiring minds want to know.) Perry From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800 *All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. David Miller wrote: CD wrote: ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors? *All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.* The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Dave, you say, "assuming the above website is correct." If it is not can we accuse you spreading lies? From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:51:03 -0800 DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm Screven The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven. ..according to... http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm assuming the above website is correct. Kevin Deegan wrote: *How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist?* *As far as the Baptists:* *200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:* "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, /Letters, Apud Opera/, pp. 112, 113.) /*The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! */ *Sir Isaac Newton:* "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." *Mosheim (Lutheran historian):* "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." */Edinburg Cyclopedia/ (Presbyterian):* "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." /*Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John!*/ Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them. Ask a Methodist, John Wesley Ask a Mormon Joe Smith Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope" Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL Who founded the baptist church? */Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: *What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?* DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim? Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. *What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist?* We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to. */Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not accept it though? Kevin Deegan wrote: I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts. Where was the break in authority DH? Who was the last group to Hold it? */David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: Kevin wrote: >> Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. >> The RCC came along generations later. CD wrote: > Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054, when it split away from the churches of the East. About 500 years later it splintered into the various Protestant groups. Peace be with you. -- ~~~ 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Dave, do you consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source of truth? Who wrote the article? Who are these "Christian church historians". Why is the word "protestant" in quotes? This article has no credits and no citations. Why should it carry any weight other than the fact that it mentions a few points you are trying to make? But, if you prefer Wikipedia for your source of truth, then perhaps you should have read on... "The name Protestant is rejected by some Baptists because Baptists do not have a direct connection to Luther, Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church. They do not feel that they are protesting anything and Landmark Baptists believe they pre-date the Roman Catholic Church. Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, sola fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin and traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s." Notice that first line? On the other hand, I prefer the term "Christian" to any other labels...those who are members of the Body of Christ, regardless of from which tradition they come, what "denomination" of fellowship they attend, and who get their truth from the Word of God. This may also include personal revelation that is in line with Biblical truths and principles. So, relying on heretical extra-biblical works produced by or through a magic talisman bearing peep-stone treasure hunter disqualifies one from the Body of Christ. Perry From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800 DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI /The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "*Protestant*" group baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. _Christian church historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later anabaptist groups._/ ..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are Protestants. -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. But from my perspective, you are ignoring that Scripture includes more than just the Bible. To me, your comment... You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. .seems awfully shortsighted to limit Scripture as many Protestants do. Kevin also implied. the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible .and I would ask you the same question I asked him. Where does the Bible suggest that Jesus and God are of one substance? Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct. Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement, because to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine! Almost ALL of it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible. You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. Perry -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct. Dave, it really sounds funny to me to hear you make that statement, because to we Christians can SEE that it applies to most LDS doctrine! Almost ALL of it is non-biblical!!! Plus, the concept of the Trinity is truly in the Bible. You could see it too if you had not been raised to accept the heresy of the mormon church and close your eyes to the truth of Scripture. Perry -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Don't you mean "one in purpose"? : ) Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scripturesDAVEH: Where do you find one substance in the Bible, Kevin? As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct.Kevin Deegan wrote: I believe the Reformers tried to rely on the scripture alone as best they could. I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scriptures so I have no problem with one even discovering it purely from a reading of the scriptures Alone! SOLA SCRIPTURA! NO Church authority or Pope or Tradition or Prophet required!Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity with RCC doctrines? IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own doctrine?BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.David Miller wrote:> Kevin wrote: Also, I am interested in what doctrines you believe>>> the protestants retained from the RCC DAVEH:>>> Trinity Doctrine>>> Why should this be surprising to you? The Trinity Doctrine came about > long before the Roman Catholic Church did. Even some of the other > Mormon sects accept the Trinity, and so did some of the LDS leaders in > the early days of the LDS.>> Peace be with you.> David Miller.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Thanks anyway DH I was not sure how you would see the issue. Now I know.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Oooops.Now I see that it was Kevin who posted the below questions to me. FTRI posted my reply assuming it was John's question.Kevin Deegan wrote: DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? Where they the one true church but Apostacized? -- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: We (LDS) don't discuss much of what happens inside the Temple outside the Templenot even amongst LDS people who go to the Temple. So, if TTers want to ask me questions about my beliefs, I'll answer themregardless of whether they are pro-Mormon or not. However, as you knowit is futile for me to discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons, who are intent on denigrating my beliefs. ButI did not come to TT to discuss LDS theology with other Mormons. I can do that anytime I want, and for the most part doing so does not intrigue me nearly as much as discussing Protestant theology with TTers. ShieldsFamily wrote: Just wondering, DaveH, which pro-mormons are you here to discuss LDS theology with? Izzy DAVEH: Nor has my implied answer been clear to you. I've previously said I would not discuss our Temple ceremonies, nor do I want to discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons. -- ~~~ 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.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
When at least are you going to become CONSISTENT? : ) DAVEH: Perhaps when you stop being OBNOXIOUS!. :-P Kevin Deegan wrote: When at least are you going to become CONSISTENT? : ) Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: I find it interesting that at times TTers accuse me of ignoring what JS said, and at other times I am accused of believing what JS said. As I see it, no matter what I say or believe.there are going to be some TTers who just won't be happy! ShieldsFamily wrote: You forget, Terry, that mormons ignore what the Bible says for what JSmith says. iz Hate to butt in here folks, but if memory serves me correctly, the Bible teaches us to always be ready to give an answer for what we believe. Terry = Dave Hansen wrote: DAVEH: Nor has my implied answer been clear to you. I've previously said I would not discuss our Temple ceremonies, nor do I want to discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons. Did you not understand that I consider it futile to due business with an anti-Mormon? As I see it, anti-Mormons are not seeking truth, they are seeking to attack. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, Perhaps my question has not been clear... What does "Pay Lay Ale" mean? If we are going to do business your way than lay your cards face up on the table. Perry -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
I am not trying to squeeze you into a corner. DAVEH: And I realize and appreciate that, Terry. FWIWI do not consider you to be an anti-Mormon. At least you have not exhibited such tendencies as far as I can remember. YesI agree with vs 15. However, the Lord does not always answer in a way we might expect. Nor, did Jesus answer his accusers in a way they were expecting. Many of his answers were veiled in a double meaning, that were intended to convey a truth without falling victim to their ploys to destroy him. I don't mind responding to those who have honest questions about what I believe. I've done that on many occasions here on TT, but as you knownot everybody likes or even believes my answers. (And notethere are apparently some TTers who believe I should not be posting anything on TT.) But on the other hand, I'm not going to set myself up to be a punching bag. I simply don't feel compelled to respond to those who want to denigrate my beliefs any more than the Lord answered nothing when his enemies were beseeching him. For anybody to use vs 15 as a reason for me to do so, I believe does not truly understand the gospel. FTRI have explained that I am not going to discuss those things we do in the Temple that I feel are sacred. I have also said that I do not want to further discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons on TT. (That's a tough one, as I tend to get sucked in on occasion.) If you want to know what I believe, go ahead and ask. Sometimes I fail to answer due to time constraints, or my inability to keep up with all the posts. If I don't respond to an important question, feel free to ask again, Terry. Terry Clifton wrote: Yes Dave, I have a reference and am ready to give an answer. Check out first Peter, 3:15. You appear to be a nice guy,Dave, or at least you did up to this point. Now you are making yourself suspect by hiding your light under a bushel. I, for one, would respect you more if you were forthright instead of elusive, and for what it is worth, I try not to be anti- anyone. I am not trying to squeeze you into a corner. If you are prohibited from discussing you faith, tell me and I will ask no more. If you are free to discuss your faith, answer a brother or brothers. You will be criticized either way you turn, but that is to be expected by people who choose to follow Christ. Terry = Dave Hansen wrote: DAVEH: I'm not sure I'd agree with you on that, Terry. Do you have a reference? It seems to me that there was a lot of stuff that was meant to be hiddenespecially from those whose intent is to do harm. Seems like Jesus set an example in Mk 15 when he refused to answer those who made false accusations against him [2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. [3] And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. [4] And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. [5] But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. If all things were meant to be revealed to anybody who asked, then why are there any mysteries in the Bible? Terry Clifton wrote: Hate to butt in here folks, but if memory serves me correctly, the Bible teaches us to always be ready to give an answer for what we believe. Terry = Dave Hansen wrote: DAVEH: Nor has my implied answer been clear to you. I've previously said I would not discuss our Temple ceremonies, nor do I want to discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons. Did you not understand that I consider it futile to due business with an anti-Mormon? As I see it, anti-Mormons are not seeking truth, they are seeking to attack. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, Perhaps my question has not been clear... What does "Pay Lay Ale" mean? If we are going to do business your way than lay your cards face up on the table. Perry -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight. DAVEH: I've tried to do that in times past, Perry. But despite what I say, you believe what you want to, irregardless of the truth. Your intent seems not to care about what LDS theology teaches, but rather you want to destroy LDS theology. Am I perceiving your agenda correctly, Perry? Charles Perry Locke wrote: If I lack insight and make wrong assumptions, Dave, set me straight. You will not talk about Temple rituals because you have taken oaths not to, and have been told of the penalties that you will endure of you reveal them, like having your throat cut from ear to ear, or having you belly cut and your intestines spilled on the ground (if I am in error heere please correct me by revealing tthe correct penalties), just like the Masons (who incorporated gripd, signs, tokens, and epnealties long before JS was a mason) from which parts of the mormon temple ceremonies were copied. So, I must rely on ex-mormons who have been brought into the light, left the mormon cult, and now reveal the rituals that are performed inside the temple. The mormon temple rites are no different than any secret organization...the cultic structure is very obvious. So, if you don't know what "pay lay ale" means, then I guess I must turn to those who do, and will admit it. The only truth is the Word of God, Dave, something the mormons pay lip service to, but set aside for the works of the false prophet JS. You can certainly tell me all day that I do not have the truth, but can you demonstrate that? Perry DAVEH: It is posts like this that confirm my presumption that you lack understanding, perception and truth, Perry. I understand your need to /wing it/, so to speak, in an effort to by chance hit a soft spot in my armor. Instead, as I see it by making incorrect assumptions, you are simply proving your lack of insight. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, My ultimate concern is that if you are raising your hands and chanting words that you do not understand, you may be invoking that which you presume you are not. That is the key to whom you owe your allegiance. If you are not sure, or do not know exactly what that means, where it came from, what language it is in, and to whom you are praying when you do that, then when you get to the deepest part of your ritual, in the deepest part of your temple, and perform signs and chant those words, nothing else said or believed outside of that moment defines your religion. You are invoking who you invoke. On the other hand, if you know that you are invoking Satan, or anyone or anything other than God, and you wish to do that, then I have no argument with your faith. You are free to do that as long as you know what you are doing, and choose to continue it. (Actually, you are free to do it blindly, too, if you wish. But if you are, pleading ignorance at your jusgement will not be a valid excuse, "...they [men] are without excuse" - Romans 1). You and millions of other mormons may not really know what is going on at that moment. You may be doing it just because someone told you that is the thing to do, or because you think, "If it happens in the temple it can't be wrong". Think again, Dave. Think about exactly what is it that you are doing and saying at that moment. If your leaders cannot answer the questions with certainty and proof of their meaning, rather than with side-steps and cute answers, then you just may be paying homage to something other than the God you think you are invoking. Do you know for sure? Your burning bosom can't answer that question. I will pray for your deliverance, and the deliverance of your family, and all mormons, that the veil of darkness will be lifted and the light of Jesus Christ will shine in. Perry -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Your religion is ambiguous and confusing DAVEH: Only when described by an anti-Mormon, Perry. Charles Perry Locke wrote: You are absolutely right, Dave. Your religion is ambiguous and confusing. If you go completely by what JS said, you will at the same times have to ignore the erroneaous and heretical claims he made (or just flat out deny them in spite of the testimony of your fellow mormons), or follow the heretical doctrines he invented. Buy the ticket, take the ride. DAVEH: I find it interesting that at times TTers accuse me of ignoring what JS said, and at other times I am accused of believing what JS said. As I see it, no matter what I say or believe.there are going to be some TTers who just won't be happy! ShieldsFamily wrote: You forget, Terry, that mormons ignore what the Bible says for what JSmith says. iz ** Hate to butt in here folks, but if memory serves me correctly, the Bible teaches us to always be ready to give an answer for what we believe. Terry = Dave Hansen wrote: DAVEH: Nor has my implied answer been clear to you. I've previously said I would not discuss our Temple ceremonies, nor do I want to discuss LDS theology with anti-Mormons. Did you not understand that I consider it futile to *due business* with an anti-Mormon? As I see it, anti-Mormons are not seeking truth, they are seeking to attack. Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, Perhaps my question has not been clear... What does "Pay Lay Ale" mean? If we are going to *do business *your way than lay your cards face up on the table. Perry -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From our perspective, our religious roots predate that time framewhich is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism. David Miller wrote: CD wrote: ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national movement under the proceding Emperors? All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Seems to me that the Southern Baptists may be able to trace their roots to the Rev Wm Screven The Church was founded in 1682 and originally organized in Kittery, Maine by the Rev. William Screven. ..according to... http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/charleston/bap.htm assuming the above website is correct. Kevin Deegan wrote: How can they possibly claim Apostolic succession, when they did not exist? As far as the Baptists: 200Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent: "Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.) The "twelve hundred years" were years PRECEDING the Reformation and the Protestants! Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." Mosheim (Lutheran historian): "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists." Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): "It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time." Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John! Don't most churches have a founder? Ask any number of churches who founded them. Ask a Methodist, John Wesley Ask a Mormon Joe Smith Ask a Catholic Peter the "pope" Ask a Lutheran Martin Luther Ask a baptist I doubt he will answer Roger Williams! LOL Who founded the baptist church? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What if I gave you a list of Successive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? DAVEH: Can that be done? You and I both agree regarding the RCC claim. But, at least they lay some claim to a historical right to the priesthood authority. Do you know of another religion that makes a similar claim? Kevin Deegan wrote: I don't accept fairy tales. What if I gave you a list of Succesive heads of the Baptist church going all the way back to John the Baptist? We would need to have a history of that Church to go along with the names. As far as Peter how did he become a Pope? There is absolutely no history that the RCC can point to. Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? The RCC folks claim the authority as given to Peter was then handed down to the popes through the centuries, and can presumably name them all. I assume you do not accept that lineage of authority though. I am curious why you would not accept it though? Kevin Deegan wrote: I am interested to see how DH's General Apostacy theory holds water after seeing these facts. Where was the break in authority DH? Who was the last group to Hold it? David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote: >> Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. >> The RCC came along generations later. CD wrote: > Correct Kevin somewhere around 400 ad. Actually, the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054, when it split away from the churches of the East. About 500 years later it splintered into the various Protestant groups. Peace be with you. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Did you not read the WIKI definition I previously provided, Kevin? DavidM has subsequently provided this one, also from WIKI The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "Protestant" group baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. Christian church historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later anabaptist groups. ..Does that not explain the situation? Modern day Baptists are Protestants. Kevin Deegan wrote: Some folks claim baptists come from Holland and Roger Williams, but as I have shown quotes by even enemies of baptists that date them to before the reformation, it can not be so. So who was the founder of the baptists? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Then why are they defined as Protestants? When did they first take on an identity? Kevin Deegan wrote: Of course they are not protestants they existed before the protestant movement. Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants. Here's a WIKI definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist .Do you consider them non Protestant, Kevin? Kevin Deegan wrote: Would you say Baptists have a significant number? Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Do any of them exist today in significant numbers? Kevin Deegan wrote: There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the protestants and therefore can not by any definition be considered "protestant" AnaBaptists Waldensians Montanists Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC came along generations later. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: What puzzle? My interest is the Protestant connection. To which non-Protestant group are you referring, Kevin? Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you leave out a very important piece of the puzzle, when you leave the NON Protestant groups out of the equation. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Dang...you are sucking me in again, Kevin! I don't see it as a limited apostasy, but rather a general apostasy that affected the entire Church. It isn't that I believe the Protestants erred, but rather that they never had a solid (or live) root, and subsequently they merely adopted (such as the case of the Trinity Doctrine) or reformed (viz, baptism) the doctrinal principles of the RCC. Those outside the RCC or Protestant realms do not particularly intrigue me, nor am I very knowledgeable about them. My interests tend to focus on the Reformer's need to distance themselves from RCC authority, while at the same time feeling compelled to keep the theology, while modifying those doctrines they believed had devolved. Kevin Deegan wrote: So you see a limited Apostacy as it was only the RCC not the Protestants who ERRED? And what of those that continued as neither part of the RCC nor were they "protestants" since they existed before the protestants and contemporaneous to the RCC? They were the recipients of the terror of the RCC burnings etc. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are Protestants, Christians? DAVEH: As much so as LDS folks. My main interest is in Protestants because of their need to reform traditional theology (on the RCC level), yet deny the apostasy into which we (LDS) perceive the RCC fell. I find that train of succession (for the lack of a better word)...or, evolution of religious thought to be interesting, and is the focal point of my participation in TT.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: That seems to support my assumption that (modern day) Baptists are Protestants, as I read it. Do you disagree, DavidM??? If so, what baptist groups can you point to today that have not descended from the Protestant Baptists The word Anabaptism may be used to describe a "Protestant" group baptizing Christians who were baptized in infancy and/or who come to them from other bodies, any of the 16th century "radical" dissenters, or the denominations descending from the followers of Menno Simons. The use of the term Anabaptism does not necessarily imply claims to uniformity between the groups thus denominated. Today the descendants of the 16th century European movement (particularly the Amish, Hutterites, & Mennonites) are the most common bodies referred to as Anabaptist. Yet other bodies (such as the early English Baptists) were also referred to by their enemies as Anabaptists, and are clearly Anabaptists in the generally accepted sense of the term. The majority of Baptists further engage in a practice others consider "rebaptizing" in that they usually rebaptize even adult believers who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. Christian church historians generally believe that there is no historical continuity between anabaptists in the first few centuries of the Christianity and later anabaptist groups. .considering the last line of this paragraph? David Miller wrote: DAVEH: I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants. Here's a WIKI definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist Perhaps the following paragraph describes Kevin's perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist Apostolic succession Another popular theory is that the 16th century Anabaptists were part of an apostolic succession of churches (or church perpetuity) from the time of Christ. According to this idea there had been a continuity of small groups outside the Catholic Church from A.D. 30 to 1525 (which continues also to the present). Proponents of this view point out many common expressions of belief in these Catholic dissenters. The opponents of this theory emphasize that these non-Catholic groups differed from each other, that they held some heretical views, and/or that they had no connection with one another. This view is held by some Baptists, some Mennonites, and a number of "true church" movements.³ The writings of John T. Christian, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary professor, contain perhaps the best scholarly presentation of this successionist view. Somewhat related to this is that the Anabaptists are of Waldensian origin. Some hold the idea that the Waldenses are part of the apostolic succession, while others simply believe they were an independent group out of whom the Anabaptists arose. Estep asserts "the Waldenses disappeared in Switzerland a century before the rise of the Anabaptist movement." Ludwig Keller, Thomas M. Lindsay, H. C. Vedder, Delbert Grätz, and Thieleman van Braght all held, in varying degrees, the position that the Anabaptists were of Waldensian origin. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scriptures DAVEH: Where do you find one substance in the Bible, Kevin? As with any incorrect doctrine...it is not what can be found in Scripture that is congruent with it, but rather that which is in the theory that is not found in Scripture that defines whether or not it is doctrinally correct. Kevin Deegan wrote: I believe the Reformers tried to rely on the scripture alone as best they could. I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scriptures so I have no problem with one even discovering it purely from a reading of the scriptures Alone! SOLA SCRIPTURA! NO Church authority or Pope or Tradition or Prophet required! Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity with RCC doctrines? IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own doctrine? BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines. David Miller wrote: > Kevin wrote: > >>> Also, I am interested in what doctrines you believe >>> the protestants retained from the RCC >> > > DAVEH: > >> Trinity Doctrine > > > Why should this be surprising to you? The Trinity Doctrine came about > long before the Roman Catholic Church did. Even some of the other > Mormon sects accept the Trinity, and so did some of the LDS leaders in > the early days of the LDS. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity with RCC doctrines? There is no doubt that tradition is a powerful force, even among those who break away from what they consider to be bad tradition. Nevertheless, there is evidence that the Reformers believed the Trinity because of their own studies on the subject. DAVEH: For anyone to think they were not heavily biased by their RCC affiliation stretches the imagination. As I see it, their break with the RCC was based on their differences of opinion. If they had studied the TD and not found it distasteful to their beliefs, then there would be no reason to break from that tradition. DaveH wrote: IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own doctrine? Just consider that John Calvin's primary contention against Michael Servetus was the doctrine of the Trinity. Calvin considered anyone who taught against the Trinity to be a heretic who deserved to be burned at the stake. DAVEH: An interestingif not harshChristian attitude! Read his own arguments against Servetus's sebellianism and you cannot possibly think that he simply adopted the Trinity because of tradition. Calvin clearly studied it for himself. DAVEH: I have no doubt that he did study it himself, but his acceptance of it does not change its nature.which as I see it was a politically motivated doctrine of obfuscation. I would not be surprised if Calvin felt the need to retain it for the same reason. From his perspective, anybody teaching against it might be a real threat to his religious foundation. DaveH wrote: BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines. Good point. I have made the case many times in this forum that from a historical point of view, Mormonism is a branch of Protestant Christianity. DAVEH: Whilst the people came from a Protestant background, I don't see why you would think the theology did likewise. There were doctrines (TD, infant baptism, etc) that were not a part of Biblical Christianity that the RCC adopted and some of the Reformers henceforth adopted. I don't see any of that in Mormonism.do you? I'm perhaps too close to LDS theology to see such, but if you do I'd appreciate you sharing it. The interesting thing is that you consider Mormonism to be a restoration of primitive Christianity, while many of us view Mormonism as an extreme furtherance of the apostasy. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? I think St. Martin might be a proper example, but rather than get bogged down in names and history, how about we simply examine the Biblical basis for authority. We find Jesus conferring authority in the following passage: Matthew 16:15-19 (15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? (16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Now Peter had already been given authority prior to this event (see Matthew 10:1). DAVEH: As I see it, Jesus gave them that authority through the ordination process as mentioned in Mk 3... [13] And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. [14] And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, [15] And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: .or Jn 15... [15] Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. [16] Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. Acts 13 suggests that laying on of hands is the method of setting them apart for the work they are prescribed to do [1] Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. [3] And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. ..When the Lord gave Peter the keys of the kingdom to seal, Peter already had the authority to act in behalf of God, and was commissioned in Mt 10:1-8 to preach, heal and cast out devils, etc...but he had not previously been given the commission to do the specific action of sealing. So DavidM.no, I do not see that Jesus was giving Peter power in Mt 16. Peter already had the power to act in behalf of God, but the keys were a special commission to do a specific act that had not previously been requested. As I see it, the power to act in behalf of God was given upon their (Peter and the other apostles) ordination. Therefore, what we are seeing here is insight from Jesus into how authority is conferred upon a person. It comes from the faith of the believer. DAVEH: That seem illogical. If the faith of a believer is all that is needed to gain the authority to act in God's behalf, then do you recognize the faith of the believers of the RCC? Orhow about the faith of the believers in Mormonism? The confession of faith is what brought Simon authority, causing his name to be changed to Peter (meaning rock), and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Every believer receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven when he steps into this realm of faith. After all, the promise of the kingdom was not made to one person, but to many. DAVEH: Ohh..that's an interesting insight, DavidM. Now I'm beginning to see why you believe as you do. However, it seems illogical to me for you to draw that conclusion due to the apostles previous receipt of the power of God as described at the time Jesus ordained them. Don't you believe that the apostles already had the power of God prior to Jesus giving Peter the keys in Mt 16? IF your scenario is correct, Jesus would not have had to give Peter the authority in the first placeit would have been automatic due to Peter's belief. Yet Jesus obviously gave something to Peter at that time due to his belief. Logically, my assertion that it was a special commission (keys) makes more sense. ButI do have my LDS bias that reinforces that notion. I just fail to see how you would build your case on such a passage. Are there other passages that support your perspective? The entire churc
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: My interjection did not prevent you from continuing to discuss it with Jeff. cd: Correct but and in our truth God gives times of salvation and once rejection is made He may withdraw the light-for a time or forever- DAVEH: Why do you think God would withdraw the light, Dean? That seems counter to what the Bible teaches about the prodigal son. cd: Actually it is more serious than just withdrawing the light. 2 Thess. 2 :10-12 States that because they rejected God's offered love He sends them strong a strong deluding influence so that they will believe a lie and be damned.A smack in the face for the God loves everybody crowd huh? Once this happens one could talk to them until one is blue in the face and get nowhere-sound like anybody you know?Hope not. DAVEH: Were you not aware of my position here in TT, Dean? I've previously explained that I did not join TT to be converted away from my LDS beliefs. Now that you know that, you do not need to talk to me for that purpose until you are blue in the face. Regarding vss 10-12.If one truly embraced truth, would they attempt to use untruth to smear another's beliefs? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Dean Moore wrote: cd: Ignorance in our language isn't a bad word or a put down-it means that one simple doesn't know certain topics or facts. I am ignorant about many areas of Mormon religion such as what is Pay-lay ale? Yet I understand that to be the brother of Christ-Satan isn't viewed in your religion to be such a bad guy.So to you doing a chant invoking his name isn't the worst one can do. DAVEH: So why do you make assumptions about something you do not know about, Dean? Your ignorance may cause you to draw incorrect conclusions. cd: So where am I wrong Dave? Help me overcome my ignorance as we try to do you. DAVEH: If you don't understand something about LDS theology, why would you make incorrect claims about what we believe rather than asking what we believe? (I may be wrong, but I think you were one who claimed that we believe God had sex with Mary.correct me if I am wrong.) But for the matter of our discussion Lucifer is not another name of Satan DAVEH: Do you not consider Lucifer and Satan to be one in the same entity??? cd: No and if you follow mine and Kevin's debate you will see why. DAVEH: I find that interesting, Dean. I thought that was commonly believed. I have not been following your exchange with Kevin very closely, so I do not know your reasons for believing they are two separate entities. Does your believe represent mainstream Protestant thinking on that? -this is a mistake in the meaning of the translation.In the ancient Greek the word was "Day Star" and refereed to the Babylon Prince Belshazzar ( I think that was his name) and was comparing men to stars and Belshazzar was the most powerful man as Venus was the brightest morning star hence to name Lucifer-which by the way the only time this name is used in the bible (Isaiah 14:12) .In a d eeper search The word actually means "Howl"The NASB is mo re correct here then the KJV. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Oooops.Now I see that it was Kevin who posted the below questions to me. FTRI posted my reply assuming it was John's question. Kevin Deegan wrote: DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? Where they the one true church but Apostacized? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? Where they the one true church but Apostacized? DAVEH: I'm not sure if you wrote the above, John...or if another TTer (Dean perhaps) wrote it. But, to respond... No, I do not believe the RCC had the priesthood as they claimed. NoteI've changed truth to priesthood, as I believe the RCC does have some truth, but I do not believe they ever had the proper power to act for God. Hence, I do not believe they ever represented the True Church. If I understand the Protestant theory of having authority of God merely by belief of believersthen it would seem that Protestants would allow that the RCC folks do have proper authority of God, since many of them are sincere believers. Is that correct? To me that would lump both in the same sinking boat. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The church was never "right" based on its collective understanding of the Message. In the First Church, the population was Jewish and the _expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the Message of Christ. They continued to offer sacrifice, give attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the like. They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to those who believed. JD -Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? Where they the one true church but Apostacized? -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: That was not my post, Kevin. The Bishop of TT was apparently asking me (DH) a question. Kevin Deegan wrote: Thanks DH! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The church was never "right" based on its collective understanding of the Message. In the First Church, the population was Jewish and the _expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the Message of Christ. They continued to offer sacrifice, give attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the like. They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to those who believed. JD -Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? Where they the one true church but Apostacized? Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com -- "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. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Thank Paul and Luke. I got most of my info from them . JD -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:52:59 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Thanks DH! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The church was never "right" based on its collective understanding of > the Message. In the First Church, the population was Jewish and > the _expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation > of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the > Message of Christ. They continued to offer sacrifice, give > attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the > like. They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for > righteousness to those who believed. > > JD > > -Original Message- > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST) > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know > > > DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? > Where they the one true church but Apostacized? > > > > > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Thanks DH! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The church was never "right" based on its collective understanding of > the Message. In the First Church, the population was Jewish and > the expression of their corporate activity combined the continuation > of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the > Message of Christ. They continued to offer sacrifice, give > attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the > like. They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for > righteousness to those who believed. > > JD > > -Original Message- > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST) > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know > > > DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? > Where they the one true church but Apostacized? > > > > > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
The church was never "right" based on its collective understanding of the Message. In the First Church, the population was Jewish and the _expression_ of their corporate activity combined the continuation of all that was part of their [Jewish] faith with the addition of the Message of Christ. They continued to offer sacrifice, give attention to their priests, observe new moons and sabbaths , and the like. They did not understand that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to those who believed. JD -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:25:53 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? Where they the one true church but Apostacized? Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DH Do you believe that the RCC had the truth but lost it? Where they the one true church but Apostacized? Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
All of the doctrines of the Church are demonstratably Evolutionary. That is why the 1830 BoM does not even include most of the unique doctrines held today. Very interesting is the development of the priesthood doctrine. We have testimony outside of the standard works http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/DavidWhitmer.htm showing it was not brought into the church until around 1832 "This matter of 'Priesthood,' since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. Priesthood means authority; and authority is the word we should use. I do not think the word priesthood is mentioned in the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon. Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church--until Sydney Rigdon's days in Ohio. This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire, and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their heartsaccording to the desires of the heart, the inspiration comes, but it may be the spirit of man that gives it This is the way the High Priests and the 'priesthood' as you have it, was introduced into the Church of Christ almost two years after its beginning--and after we had baptized and confirmed about two thousand souls into the church." (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer p. 64) SO The Book of Commandments being 1833 HAS NOT ONE Priesthood Revelation even though they supposedly happened years earlier! Revelations that were recieved in 1830 did not appear until the 1835 D&C "I never heard one word of John the baptist, or of Peter, James, and John's visit and ordination till I was told some year afterward in Ohio." Apostle William E. McLellin A much more believable understanding would be that the revelations were created at a later date and inserted into the record. We have testimony to that fact in these two places. 1) One only need compare some Revelations, that are in the BC to those same ones in the DC to see the books have been cooked! 2) "You have CHANGED THE REVELATIONS from the way they were first given and as they are today in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon." (An Address To All Believers In Christ, p. 49) NOTE check the revelation that says joe was only given the power to translate in the BC that one had to be fixed real quick. "The important details that are missing from the 'full history' of 1834 are likewise missing from the Book of Commandments in 1833. The student would expect to find all the particulars of the Restoration in this first treasured set of 65 revelations, the dates of which encompassed the bestowals of the two Priesthoods, but they are conspicuously absent... The notable revelations on Priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants before referred to, Sections 2 and 13, are missing, and Chapter 28 gives no hint of the Restoration which, if actual, had been known for four years. More than four hundred words were added to this revelation of August, 1829 in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the additions made to include the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments gives the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph's apostolic calling but there is no mention of Melchezedek Priesthood, High Priesthood, Seventies, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on Church organization and government of April, 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date, but they do not appear in the original, Chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments three years later. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations known as Sections 42 and 68." (Problems in Mormon Text, by La Mar Petersen, pp. 7-8) Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the extensive demonstration of my point, Kevin. Looks to me like the mormons, at least according to the Bom, are Trinitarians. Or "were". When do you think the mormon apostasy occured and they began to deny the Trinity? I guess that makes mormons today apostate in their own religion. That is an intersting situation.Perry>From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: Tru
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Thanks for the extensive demonstration of my point, Kevin. Looks to me like the mormons, at least according to the Bom, are Trinitarians. Or "were". When do you think the mormon apostasy occured and they began to deny the Trinity? I guess that makes mormons today apostate in their own religion. That is an intersting situation. Perry From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 05:14:07 -0800 (PST) It was not a matter of a few "biased" people believing in the Trinity Thye following Standard Work shows the Trinity and that there is ONE God. (Nowhere in the BoM or anywhere else does it say "One in purpose" Mosiah 15:1,5 I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men,... And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God (Notice the contrast of Son-Flesh Father - Spirit) Alma 11:28-29 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No. Alma 11:44 every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God 2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. The Father is a Spirit! Alma 18:2 Behold, is not this the Great Spirit who doth send such great punishments upon this people, because of their murders? Alma 18:24-29And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he said: Yea 22:8-11 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God. And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words. More available upon request. Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave wrote: > BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons >believed it [the Trinity], as most of them came from Protestant stock, and >would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines. It was not a matter of a few "biased" people believing in the Trinity...I understand that the Trinity was taught in official church educational materials. In the front of the Bom, there is a statement that affirms the Trinity (unless it has been changed since I got my version!) Unless I am mistaken they distinctly state that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God. That sure sounds like the Trinity to me! Perry -- "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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
It was not a matter of a few "biased" people believing in the Trinity Thye following Standard Work shows the Trinity and that there is ONE God. (Nowhere in the BoM or anywhere else does it say "One in purpose" Mosiah 15:1,5 I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men,... And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God (Notice the contrast of Son-Flesh Father - Spirit) Alma 11:28-29 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No. Alma 11:44 every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God 2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. The Father is a Spirit! Alma 18:2 Behold, is not this the Great Spirit who doth send such great punishments upon this people, because of their murders? Alma 18:24-29And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he said: Yea 22:8-11 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God. And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words. More available upon request. Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave wrote:> BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons >believed it [the Trinity], as most of them came from Protestant stock, and >would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.It was not a matter of a few "biased" people believing in the Trinity...I understand that the Trinity was taught in official church educational materials. In the front of the Bom, there is a statement that affirms the Trinity (unless it has been changed since I got my version!) Unless I am mistaken they distinctly state that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God. That sure sounds like the Trinity to me!Perry--"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.orgIf 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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk Sent: 10/31/2005 1:46:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know I still wonder what Jeff's affirmation of the Trinity meant to him DAVEH: My interjection did not prevent you from continuing to discuss it with Jeff. cd: Correct but and in our truth God gives times of salvation and once rejection is made He may withdraw the light-for a time or forever- DAVEH: Why do you think God would withdraw the light, Dean? That seems counter to what the Bible teaches about the prodigal son. cd: Actually it is more serious than just withdrawing the light. 2 Thess. 2 :10-12 States that because they rejected God's offered love He sends them strong a strong deluding influence so that they will believe a lie and be damned.A smack in the face for the God loves everybody crowd huh? Once this happens one could talk to them until one is blue in the face and get nowhere-sound like anybody you know?Hope not. His decision-but thru the pleading (intercessory prayer) of the saints He had been know to change His decision. Miller could continue to talk to Jeff but without God drawing Jeff to repentance there is no salvation (the dynamics). In short the moment was lost as is Jeff-How you considered that we are right about hell and what that means to Jeff?To cause someone to withstand the Holy Spirit is serious indeed.DAVEH: I don't think the Holy Spirit is speaking through you, Dean.-- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Cd: Thanks that makes sense-good information. > [Original Message] > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 10/31/2005 12:02:35 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know > > CD wrote: > > ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back > > to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought > > under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national > > movement under the proceding Emperors? > > All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The > Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that > Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of > Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the > Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, > there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the > large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have > primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the > meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what > Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was > decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of > Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This > was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to > Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split > into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of > interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time > when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at > once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne". > > The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and > this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than > with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no > resemblance to Constantine's banner. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/31/2005 8:23:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Of course they are not protestants they existed before the protestant movement. cd: I told him the same thing years ago Kevin-hope he listens this time.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants. Here's a WIKI definitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist.Do you consider them non Protestant, Kevin?Kevin Deegan wrote: Would you say Baptists have a significant number? Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Do any of them exist today in significant numbers?Kevin Deegan wrote: There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the protestants and therefore can not by any definition be considered "protestant" AnaBaptists Waldensians Montanists Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC came along generations later.Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: What puzzle? My interest is the Protestant connection. To which non-Protestant group are you referring, Kevin?Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you leave out a very important piece of the puzzle, when you leave the NON Protestant groups out of the equation. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Dang...you are sucking me in again, Kevin! I don't see it as a limited apostasy, but rather a general apostasy that affected the entire Church. It isn't that I believe the Protestants erred, but rather that they never had a solid (or live) root, and subsequently they merely adopted (such as the case of the Trinity Doctrine) or reformed (viz, baptism) the doctrinal principles of the RCC. Those outside the RCC or Protestant realms do not particularly intrigue me, nor am I very knowledgeable about them. My interests tend to focus on the Reformer's need to distance themselves from RCC authority, while at the same time feeling compelled to keep the theology, while modifying those doctrines they believed had devolved.Kevin Deegan wrote: So you see a limited Apostacy as it was only the RCC not the Protestants who ERRED? And what of those that continued as neither part of the RCC nor were they "protestants" since they existed before the protestants and contemporaneous to the RCC?They were the recipients of the terror of the RCC burnings etc. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are Protestants, Christians?DAVEH: As much so as LDS folks. My main interest is in Protestants because of their need to reform traditional theology (on the RCC level), yet deny the apostasy into which we (LDS) perceive the RCC fell. I find that train of succession (for the lack of a better word)...or, evolution of religious thought to be interesting, and is the focal point of my participation in TT.Kevin Deegan wrote: Why do you draw a line between Protestants and LDS? Are Protestants, Christians? Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/31/2005 1:54:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Dean Moore wrote: Andyes, you are correct. Sometimes I have had meaningful discussions with you, even though I'm sure you find me still ignorant in matters of truth. I appreciate you continuing to chat with me despite my presumed ignorance. cd: Ignorance in our language isn't a bad word or a put down-it means that one simple doesn't know certain topics or facts. I am ignorant about many areas of Mormon religion such as what is Pay-lay ale? Yet I understand that to be the brother of Christ-Satan isn't viewed in your religion to be such a bad guy.So to you doing a chant invoking his name isn't the worst one can do. DAVEH: So why do you make assumptions about something you do not know about, Dean? Your ignorance may cause you to draw incorrect conclusions. cd: So where am I wrong Dave? Help me overcome my ignorance as we try to do you. But for the matter of our discussion Lucifer is not another name of Satan DAVEH: Do you not consider Lucifer and Satan to be one in the same entity??? cd: No and if you follow mine and Kevin's debate you will see why. -this is a mistake in the meaning of the translation.In the ancient Greek the word was "Day Star" and refereed to the Babylon Prince Belshazzar ( I think that was his name) and was comparing men to stars and Belshazzar was the most powerful man as Venus was the brightest morning star hence to name Lucifer-which by the way the only time this name is used in the bible (Isaiah 14:12) .In a d eeper search The word actually means "Howl"The NASB is mo re correct here then the KJV. -- ~~~ 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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
You failed to answer my question, as you often do. Well, what is your answer? As for me, no, I am not willing to acknowledge that the shoe could be on the other foot. I believe the Bible. Do you think the Bible teaches that Christinas worship Satan? Be areful here...you could be committing the unpardonable sin by believing that! I am not the one that chants words that I do not understand that purprortedly invoke the name of Lucifer in secret occultic rights in secret temples, Dave. Perry From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DAVEH: Do you acknowledge that the shoe could be on the other foot? Charles Perry Locke wrote: And, Dave, what if that indeed is so! *what if Dave is deceived and is indeed paying homage to Satan without knowing it* -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Dave wrote: BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it [the Trinity], as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines. It was not a matter of a few "biased" people believing in the Trinity...I understand that the Trinity was taught in official church educational materials. In the front of the Bom, there is a statement that affirms the Trinity (unless it has been changed since I got my version!) Unless I am mistaken they distinctly state that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God. That sure sounds like the Trinity to me! Perry -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
I do not believe the Organized RCC extend back to the time period. --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Prior to the beginning of the Middle Ages (~500 A.D.), can you give > me any specific example of the "RCC" trying to exterminate those who > disagreed with "RCC" doctrine and practice? > > The Arian versus Trinity controversy could be considered perhaps one > of the tensions of the fourth century that you have in mind, but even > in this, banishment rather than extermination seemed to be the tool. > Furthermore, this was not "Roman Catholic" but a problem for all the > churches, both for the most ancient churches of the East and for the > newer churches of the West. > > You mention the bloodline from Stephen, but that came not from the > "RCC" but from those outside the church. Who killed Stephen? Who > killed James? Who killed Peter and Paul? Not the RCC. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > - Original Message - > From: Kevin Deegan > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:42 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know > > > Do you have some particular group in mind? > > No particular group other than the RCC was trying to exterminate > those that disagreed with RCC doctrine & practice. Those being > primarily the continuous line of True Believers down thru time. These > were folks who could have just said OK whatever you say to the RCC > and walked away. Instead they Stood on their beliefs till the death! > The true Church of Jesus Christ left a TRAIL OF BLOOD just as the OT > Jew had a Bloodline to follow! > > If you are familiar with the layout of the Jewish scriptures, you > will see the Bloodline starts in the first book ends in the last! > This is the Bloodline of the correct scriptures & correct believers, > outlined by Christ. > MT That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the > earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias > son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. > > > > So too their is a Bloodline from righteous Stephen till > > > > Hell itself can not prevail against the church of Christ! > > I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail > against it. > Church exists thru out all ages: > > Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all > ages, world without end. Amen > > > > > > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin wrote: > > Else who were the RCC murdering before the middle ages? > > Do you have some particular group in mind? > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that > you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > -- > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- "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] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Did not the early apostles (mentioned in the Bible) possess the authority of God? Do you know of any who you are certain had the authority as was given by the Lord who lived after they (the Biblical apostles) died? I think St. Martin might be a proper example, but rather than get bogged down in names and history, how about we simply examine the Biblical basis for authority. We find Jesus conferring authority in the following passage: Matthew 16:15-19 (15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? (16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Now Peter had already been given authority prior to this event (see Matthew 10:1). Therefore, what we are seeing here is insight from Jesus into how authority is conferred upon a person. It comes from the faith of the believer. The confession of faith is what brought Simon authority, causing his name to be changed to Peter (meaning rock), and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Every believer receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven when he steps into this realm of faith. After all, the promise of the kingdom was not made to one person, but to many. The entire church is to inherit the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
DAVEH: Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity with RCC doctrines? There is no doubt that tradition is a powerful force, even among those who break away from what they consider to be bad tradition. Nevertheless, there is evidence that the Reformers believed the Trinity because of their own studies on the subject. DaveH wrote: IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own doctrine? Just consider that John Calvin's primary contention against Michael Servetus was the doctrine of the Trinity. Calvin considered anyone who taught against the Trinity to be a heretic who deserved to be burned at the stake. Read his own arguments against Servetus's sebellianism and you cannot possibly think that he simply adopted the Trinity because of tradition. Calvin clearly studied it for himself. DaveH wrote: BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines. Good point. I have made the case many times in this forum that from a historical point of view, Mormonism is a branch of Protestant Christianity. The interesting thing is that you consider Mormonism to be a restoration of primitive Christianity, while many of us view Mormonism as an extreme furtherance of the apostasy. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Prior to the beginning of the Middle Ages (~500 A.D.), can you give me any specific example of the "RCC" trying to exterminate those who disagreed with "RCC" doctrine and practice? The Arian versus Trinity controversy could be considered perhaps one of the tensions of the fourth century that you have in mind, but even in this, banishment rather than extermination seemed to be the tool. Furthermore, this was not "Roman Catholic" but a problem for all the churches, both for the most ancient churches of the East and for the newer churches of the West. You mention the bloodline from Stephen, but that came not from the "RCC" but from those outside the church. Who killed Stephen? Who killed James? Who killed Peter and Paul? Not the RCC. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know Do you have some particular group in mind? No particular group other than the RCC was trying to exterminate those that disagreed with RCC doctrine & practice. Those being primarily the continuous line of True Believers down thru time. These were folks who could have just said OK whatever you say to the RCC and walked away. Instead they Stood on their beliefs till the death! The true Church of Jesus Christ left a TRAIL OF BLOOD just as the OT Jew had a Bloodline to follow! If you are familiar with the layout of the Jewish scriptures, you will see the Bloodline starts in the first book ends in the last! This is the Bloodline of the correct scriptures & correct believers, outlined by Christ. MT That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. So too their is a Bloodline from righteous Stephen till Hell itself can not prevail against the church of Christ! I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Church exists thru out all ages: Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote:> Else who were the RCC murdering before the middle ages?Do you have some particular group in mind? Peace be with you.David Miller.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Do you have some particular group in mind? No particular group other than the RCC was trying to exterminate those that disagreed with RCC doctrine & practice. Those being primarily the continuous line of True Believers down thru time. These were folks who could have just said OK whatever you say to the RCC and walked away. Instead they Stood on their beliefs till the death! The true Church of Jesus Christ left a TRAIL OF BLOOD just as the OT Jew had a Bloodline to follow! If you are familiar with the layout of the Jewish scriptures, you will see the Bloodline starts in the first book ends in the last! This is the Bloodline of the correct scriptures & correct believers, outlined by Christ. MT That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. So too their is a Bloodline from righteous Stephen till Hell itself can not prevail against the church of Christ! I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Church exists thru out all ages: Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin wrote:> Else who were the RCC murdering before the middle ages?Do you have some particular group in mind? Peace be with you.David Miller.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Thanks DM I hope this clarifies some things AFA the RCC, for DH David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CD wrote:> ... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back> to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought> under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national> movement under the proceding Emperors?All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine. The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government, there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome. This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision, and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears no resemblance to Constantine's banner.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
I believe the Reformers tried to rely on the scripture alone as best they could. I can plainly see the T - doctrine in the scriptures so I have no problem with one even discovering it purely from a reading of the scriptures Alone! SOLA SCRIPTURA! NO Church authority or Pope or Tradition or Prophet required!Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Do you accept that the Reformers adopted it due to their familiarity with RCC doctrines? IOW, had the RCC folks not been using it, do you think the Reformers would have taken it as their own doctrine?BTW.It is not altogether surprising that some early Mormons believed it, as most of them came from Protestant stock, and would have been versed (and biased) in Protestant doctrines.David Miller wrote:> Kevin wrote: Also, I am interested in what doctrines you believe>>> the protestants retained from the RCC DAVEH:>>> Trinity Doctrine>>> Why should this be surprising to you? The Trinity Doctrine came about > long before the Roman Catholic Church did. Even some of the other > Mormon sects accept the Trinity, and so did some of the LDS leaders in > the early days of the LDS.>> Peace be with you.> David Miller.-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings 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.orgIf 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Some folks claim baptists come from Holland and Roger Williams, but as I have shown quotes by even enemies of baptists that date them to before the reformation, it can not be so. So who was the founder of the baptists? Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Then why are they defined as Protestants? When did they first take on an identity?Kevin Deegan wrote: Of course they are not protestants they existed before the protestant movement.Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: I was under the impression that Baptists are Protestants. Here's a WIKI definitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist.Do you consider them non Protestant, Kevin?Kevin Deegan wrote: Would you say Baptists have a significant number? Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Do any of them exist today in significant numbers?Kevin Deegan wrote: There are plenty of "groups" that pre date the protestants and therefore can not by any definition be considered "protestant" AnaBaptists Waldensians Montanists Besides there was NO Catholic Church in 30AD. The RCC came along generations later.Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: What puzzle? My interest is the Protestant connection. To which non-Protestant group are you referring, Kevin?Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you leave out a very important piece of the puzzle, when you leave the NON Protestant groups out of the equation. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH: Dang...you are sucking me in again, Kevin! I don't see it as a limited apostasy, but rather a general apostasy that affected the entire Church. It isn't that I believe the Protestants erred, but rather that they never had a solid (or live) root, and subsequently they merely adopted (such as the case of the Trinity Doctrine) or reformed (viz, baptism) the doctrinal principles of the RCC. Those outside the RCC or Protestant realms do not particularly intrigue me, nor am I very knowledgeable about them. My interests tend to focus on the Reformer's need to distance themselves from RCC authority, while at the same time feeling compelled to keep the theology, while modifying those doctrines they believed had devolved.Kevin Deegan wrote: So you see a limited Apostacy as it was only the RCC not the Protestants who ERRED? And what of those that continued as neither part of the RCC nor were they "protestants" since they existed before the protestants and contemporaneous to the RCC?They were the recipients of the terror of the RCC burnings etc. Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are Protestants, Christians?DAVEH: As much so as LDS folks. My main interest is in Protestants because of their need to reform traditional theology (on the RCC level), yet deny the apostasy into which we (LDS) perceive the RCC fell. I find that train of succession (for the lack of a better word)...or, evolution of religious thought to be interesting, and is the focal point of my participation in TT.Kevin Deegan wrote: Why do you draw a line between Protestants and LDS? Are Protestants, Christians? -- ~~~ 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. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.