subject:"\[TruthTalk\] Perry vs DaveH"




What's the big deal about waving that underwear around?  Now 
if it was something skimpy from Victoria's Secret, well that would be a bit more 
shocking than that dowdy stuff.  Izzy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin 
DeeganSent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:56 PMTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
DaveH

I did not set it on fire.
Although we did dry some on a clothesline.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200404gc.html
(third pic down)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
   
   
  So, you weren't waving it around?   You were just walking 
  around the streets holding someone's underwear in your hands?   
  
   
  Jd
    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  

  
  Did someone burn Mormon underwear?
   
  When did holding something in your hand become a desecration.
   
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired 
of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




Too funny 


Bible blockheads

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

The rapture is Heresy?
 
Does that mean that you will separate from those that teach such heresy?
Since it is Heresy does it damn ones soul?
Just what effect does your label of heresy have? Any real effect, other than to raise a controversy?
 
According to Titus 3:9-10 a heretic follows his self willed questions, he is to be avoided
But avoid foolish questions...A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:








Two issues arise:
 
1. Which 'heretical doctrines' arise from 'them'?
2. IFF some actually do then, are they offset by those 'heretical doctrines' arising from the 'accepted canon'. Example:The 'rapture' doctrine from 1 Thess.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 07, 2005 07:43
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


And the RCC adopted them as canon to support their heretical doctrines. Izzy 
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:16 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 

JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of misinformation.

The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 

The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was printed as a tool like the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as part of the text as in the Oldest & best manuscripts

The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT either only in the RC bibles.

The minister of questions chooses to mislead.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   

 

Jd

 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:10:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle

James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be

missing something here JD?

 

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Myth - It is finished already

And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.

 

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


From: ShieldsFamily 

You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
 

 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









I don’t know for sure, but suspect
so.  However that is irrelevant, as God saw to it that it was the last
book in the Bible. Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 12:14
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 







Was it the last chapter in the Bible when it
was written?  





 





Jd 



 
-Original Message-
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:16:43 -0500
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



Don't you think
it is significant that the warning is written in the last

chapter of The
Book? Iz 

 

-Original
Message-

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke

Sent: Tuesday,
June 07, 2005 8:39 AM

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

 

Izzy, I have to
vote for "this book" in Rev 22:18,19 applying specifically

to the
Revelation. I used to try to apply it to the whole Bible (in a debate

with a mormon
many years ago) , and I DO believe that the general principle

applies to the
whole Bible, but in particular believe that these verses are

referring
specifically to the Book of Revelation.

 

Perry

 

>From:
"ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>

>Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

>Date: Tue, 7
Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500

> 

>  Rev 2218I
testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of 

>this

>book: if
anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are

>written in
this book;    19and if anyone takes away from the words of the

>book of this
prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of 

>life and from
the holy city, which are written in this book.

> 

>JD, tell me
what does the word "Bible" mean? And what is the last book 

>in the Bible?
Izzy

> 

> 

> 

>  
_

> 

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of 

>[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>Sent: Monday,
June 06, 2005 12:03 PM

>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

>Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

> 

> 

> 

>When did the
Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?

>There was no
book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But,

>certainly, we
should not be adding to what God has said.

> 

> 

> 

>Jd

> 

> 

>-Original
Message-

>From: Judy
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

>Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

>Sent: Mon, 6
Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400

>Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

> 

>Myth - It is
finished already

> 

>And this
warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy 

>and in
Proverbs.

> 

> 

> 

>On Mon, 6 Jun
2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

><_javascript_:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');> >
writes:

> 

>In 'Prophecy:
The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations.

> 

>From:
ShieldsFamily

><_javascript_:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>

> 

> 

>You are wrong
again, Blaine. 
Revelations says that no one is to add or 

>subtract from
the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy

> 

> 

> 

 

 

--

"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 vs DaveH

Why frame it as an undewrwear debate?
We hold the fig leaf aprons also. in the Temple Satan tells the LDS it is "a token of his priesthoods" and they put them on. A fig leaf will never cover your SIN!
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200302.html
I doubt that Bob was an eyewitness, but hey there is always poetic license to lie right?

BOB lies or repeats a lie "One man, dressed in his church clothes, walked past in the crowd, saw the insults and desecrations, and grabbed the piece of clothing. To protect it. He was charged with robbery and taken to jail."
I was an eyewitness Mr Basilio assualted from behind with a choke hold a guy half his size, while he was praying not "waving", to protect the sacred undies? If it is sacred surely LDS must assualt to protect it. MY Pastor does not assault people! What's with this HIGH PRIEST?
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=51767&nid=39&template=print
Jose Basilio Charged with Robbery "This person was talking against the Church, saying bad things against the Prophet. He was showing a garment. It was a woman's garment. The ones we wear as members of the LDS Church. I'm a High Priest. I was angry. I tried to take it from himHe said I tried to hit him. But I did not hit him. I know martial arts and if I would have wanted to hurt him, I could have broken his arm or leg. He was just a youth and I am an adult. I had no intention to hurt him."
"DWAYNE BAIRD/SALT LAKE CITY POLICE: IN DOING SO IT TOOK THE MAN TO THE GROUND, THE VICTIM AND IT DRAGGED HIM A COUPLE OF FEET AS THIS MAN RAN AWAY WITH HIS PROPERTY." Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So, you weren't waving it around? You were just walking around the streets holding someone's underwear in your hands?
Jd
Are you saying that somewhere in Salt Lake City there is a Mormon with no skivvies?That is common down here where it is still ninety degrees at bed time, but SLC is a little cool for that. Might freeze your equipment.

Discover Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


much more information than I care to consider  !!
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:53:59 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



 
 
So, you weren't waving it around?   You were just walking around the streets holding someone's underwear in your hands?   
 
Jd
Are you saying that somewhere in Salt Lake City there is a Mormon with no skivvies?That is common down here where it is still ninety degrees at bed time, but SLC is a little cool for that.  Might freeze your equipment.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

The Minister of Questions wants to know.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Was it the last chapter in the Bible when it was written?  
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:16:43 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


Don't you think it is significant that the warning is written in the last
chapter of The Book? Iz 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:39 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Izzy, I have to vote for "this book" in Rev 22:18,19 applying specifically
to the Revelation. I used to try to apply it to the whole Bible (in a debate
with a mormon many years ago) , and I DO believe that the general principle
applies to the whole Bible, but in particular believe that these verses are
referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.

Perry

>From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
>Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500
>
>  Rev 2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of 
>this
>book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are
>written in this book;19and if anyone takes away from the words of the
>book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of 
>life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
>
>JD, tell me what does the word "Bible" mean? And what is the last book 
>in the Bible? Izzy
>
>
>
>   _
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PM
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>
>
>When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?
>There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But,
>certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said.
>
>
>
>Jd
>
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>Myth - It is finished already
>
>And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy 
>and in Proverbs.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
><_javascript_:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');> > writes:
>
>In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations.
>
>From: ShieldsFamily
><_javascript_:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>
>
>
>You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or 
>subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
>
>
>


--
"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.

		Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

If a EFFEMINATE PC faith, fits you see to it!
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
 
Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
 
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Do you believe that what I wrote is a crrect teaching or not?    -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:17:23 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



Does this apply to yourself JD, or is it just for "others"?  Do you think DM is humored every time he is
referred to as legalistic and a false prophet among other things and what about repaying Kevin evil for
what you perceive to be evil?
 
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:50:48 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



The decision to commit to actions and wording that is objectionable to others is living proof that those who do such things no longer care about those whom they insult.   
 
JD  From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

From: Judy Taylor 
To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting on the toilet?
 
 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

I did not set it on fire.
Although we did dry some on a clothesline.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200404gc.html
(third pic down)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 
 
So, you weren't waving it around?   You were just walking around the streets holding someone's underwear in your hands?   
 
Jd
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



Did someone burn Mormon underwear?
 
When did holding something in your hand become a desecration.
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

What did Paul think of Gay clothing in 98AD?ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
God knew. -Original Message-Also, it does not matter what John thought Bible or book meant in the first century, as someone suggested...he was just writing down what he was being shown and told to write.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.
		Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

I guess you just condemned a few Apostles, prophets and Jesus Christ!
Or did the religious crowd enjoy be called full of dead mens bones?

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:50:48 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



The decision to commit to actions and wording that is objectionable to others is living proof that those who do such things no longer care about those whom they insult.   
 
JD  From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

From: Judy Taylor 
To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting on the toilet?
 
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Dear Minister of Questions,
 
What did the word Trinity mean to the Apostle?
How did Paul view Bible search engines?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



The more important question IMO is "what did this word "bible" mean to the Apostle John in 98 AD.  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH






 Rev 2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;    19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
JD, tell me what does the word ?Bible? mean? And what is the last book in the Bible? Izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. 

 

Jd
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


Myth - It is finished already

And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.

 

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


From: ShieldsFamily 

You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-07 Thread Blainerb473




If you believe the Bible, you might consider the passages In the 
photo--part of the Brigham Young Monument in Salt Lake City
Blaine 
 


  
  

  


  
The Hosanna Shout, 
given at the dedication of each new  temple--also, 2 passages 
from Isaiah, believed to have been fulfilled when the Salt 
Lake  temple was completed

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Personal EXPERIENCE?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



The decision to commit to actions and wording that is objectionable to others is living proof that those who do such things no longer care about those whom they insult.   
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:09:42 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 07, 2005 08:30
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting on the toilet?
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

We look for verses with similar wording and assume those passages have the same meaning and context.
Speak for yourself. I KNOW what the Bible says. So does Lance that is why he will not answer me with one of those "numerous" alternate understandings of John 3:36
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 In addition, "proof-texting" is the misuse of scripture.   All ae suspectible to this failure.   We look for verses with similar wording and assume those passages have the same meaning and context. -Original Message-From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:24:11 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





'Proof-texting' can apply to more than the Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis GWB. How did you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone, often absent appropriate context,  with the intent of critiquing the person they quote.
 
- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 07, 2005 07:39
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


How would they know if they?ve never tried? Anyway, ?proof-texting? is a term THEY use to shoot down scripture quoters.  Izzy__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-07 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
   
   
  So, you weren't waving it around?   You were just walking around
the streets holding someone's underwear in your hands?   
   
  Jd
  
  
  

Are you saying that somewhere in Salt Lake City there is a Mormon with
no skivvies?

That is common down here where it is still ninety degrees at bed time,
but SLC is a little cool for that.  Might freeze your equipment.

Re: FW: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Birds of a feather flock together!ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:









Then why watch them? J
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:18 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 

In the movies sometimes they don't care about what God said.


- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: June 06, 2005 13:05

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

 
After God said not to add to it? I think NOT. Izzy
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:01 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: June 06, 2005 12:38

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


I

Blaine:  Aren't you converted to Mormonism by now Izzy?  :>)  I'm shocked you don't know the answer.  It is BOTH.  Since they are the same individuals!  I do, however understand why you might think otherwise.  Anyone subjected to the watered-down doctrines of traditional Christianity would tend, I would think, to uphold these false niceties, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.  Satan has a way of lulling the unwary into a sense of false security,
 engendered by his presentation of a few superficial truths with his fundamental falsehoods.  This pairing is as old as the Garden of Eden, when Satan told Eve she would not surely die, AND that she would gain wisdom, the latter being the truth, and the former a lie.

 

n a message dated 6/6/2005 9:23:07 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The Bible speaks for itself.  According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy

 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.
You are as crooked as the JW arguing against a Triune god, saying the word trinity is not in the bible







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. 

 

Jd
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


Myth - It is finished already

And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.

 

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


From: ShieldsFamily 

You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Lance are you equating the Bible & the Koran to a pair of skivvies?






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 6:17 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 It's about as funny as it would be for you and your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as funny as David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness the desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright funny'!


- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: June 07, 2005 07:46

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

 
Probably because its downright funny!
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:31 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 
Street preachers just quote what it says.  IzzyDAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
DaveH, There are TT'ers who get criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they think it should say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those who quote.  Street preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy
 



 
The Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?
 -- ~~~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.
		Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


Was it the last chapter in the Bible when it was written?  
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:16:43 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


Don't you think it is significant that the warning is written in the last
chapter of The Book? Iz 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:39 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Izzy, I have to vote for "this book" in Rev 22:18,19 applying specifically
to the Revelation. I used to try to apply it to the whole Bible (in a debate
with a mormon many years ago) , and I DO believe that the general principle
applies to the whole Bible, but in particular believe that these verses are
referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.

Perry

>From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
>Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500
>
>  Rev 2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of 
>this
>book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are
>written in this book;19and if anyone takes away from the words of the
>book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of 
>life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
>
>JD, tell me what does the word "Bible" mean? And what is the last book 
>in the Bible? Izzy
>
>
>
>   _
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PM
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>
>
>When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?
>There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But,
>certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said.
>
>
>
>Jd
>
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>Myth - It is finished already
>
>And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy 
>and in Proverbs.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
><_javascript_:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');> > writes:
>
>In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations.
>
>From: ShieldsFamily
><_javascript_:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]');>
>
>
>You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or 
>subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
>
>
>


--
"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 vs DaveH


Do you believe that what I wrote is a crrect teaching or not?    -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:17:23 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



Does this apply to yourself JD, or is it just for "others"?  Do you think DM is humored every time he is
referred to as legalistic and a false prophet among other things and what about repaying Kevin evil for
what you perceive to be evil?
 
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:50:48 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



The decision to commit to actions and wording that is objectionable to others is living proof that those who do such things no longer care about those whom they insult.   
 
JD  From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

From: Judy Taylor 
To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting on the toilet?

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


 
 
So, you weren't waving it around?   You were just walking around the streets holding someone's underwear in your hands?   
 
Jd
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



Did someone burn Mormon underwear?
 
When did holding something in your hand become a desecration.

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

I agree, and I think John recorded that effectively.

From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:52:05 -0500

God knew.

-Original Message-
Also, it does not matter what John thought Bible or book meant in the first
century, as someone suggested...he was just writing down what he was being
shown and told to write.

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.

--
"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 vs DaveH

The unacceptability of my or Blaine's subjective witness is not the issue. 
Whether or not it is Biblical is the issue.


Obvious references are made obvious by quoting scripture. No obvious quote, 
no obvious reference.


Perry


From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:22:02 -0400

So then, CPL, 'his' subjective witness is unacceptable while yours is? He
did not quote Ja 1:5fg but it was his obvious reference.


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 07, 2005 10:27
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


> Lance, the gist of his reply was "I choose no  answer, for the simple
reason
> there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question."
>
> So, I eliminated the trick questions and posed the two serious ones in
hope
> that he would reconsider. They are not gobbledygook, or rediculous.
Perhaps
> he does not want to share his witness because in this forum it will not
> sound like a valid witness. Nobody wants to hear that their subjective
> feelings are not a valid witness, especially when there are no bible
verses
> to support that. That is fine, too. He is a big boy. He can reconsider 
and

> choose again not to answer.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:15:28 -0400
> >
> >He already answered these. James 1:5 fg/
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: June 07, 2005 09:01
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >
> >
> > > Blaine, there were a couple of detractor questions, but here are the
> >ones
> >I
> > > think you will be able to answer:
> > >
> > > 1. Is the "witness of the spirit" to which you referred the "burning
in
> >the
> > > bosom" that mormons say they get as a witness?
> > >
> > > 2. Do you  have any biblical references that this burning feeling
> >(a.k.a.,
> > > the "burning in the bosom") is a valid  witness of the spirit?
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> > > >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:19:43 EDT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >In a message dated 6/6/2005 3:28:38 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > >
> > > >Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Whoa,  Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective
> >heartburn
> > > >feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do 
you

> >have
> > > >any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid
witness?
> > > >Could
> > > >it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by  your
resident
> > > >demon?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Blaine:  Sorry, but none of the above rings a true sound for me.   
It

> > > >sounds
> > > >like goeldygook, or whatever.  At best, it is a rediculous
> >statement,
> > > >which deserves no answer, or a rediculous answer.  I choose no
answer,
> >for
> > > >the
> > > >simple reason there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "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

&g

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

God knew. 

-Original Message-
Also, it does not matter what John thought Bible or book meant in the first 
century, as someone suggested...he was just writing down what he was being 
shown and told to write.

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 vs DaveH

No. It could have easily been in the front of the book. Take the copyright 
notices on movies and in our books today...always up front...but that does 
not alter their effectiveness...in fact, it may even increase it since most 
people don't read books cover to cover these days, or watch movies until the 
last frame of film has passed through the projector.

Also, it does not matter what John thought Bible or book meant in the first 
century, as someone suggested...he was just writing down what he was being 
shown and told to write.

Perry

From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:16:43 -0500

Don't you think it is significant that the warning is written in the last
chapter of The Book? Iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:39 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Izzy, I have to vote for "this book" in Rev 22:18,19 applying specifically
to the Revelation. I used to try to apply it to the whole Bible (in a 
debate

with a mormon many years ago) , and I DO believe that the general principle
applies to the whole Bible, but in particular believe that these verses are
referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.

Perry

>From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: 
>Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500
>
>  Rev 2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of
>this
>book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are
>written in this book;19and if anyone takes away from the words of the
>book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of
>life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
>
>JD, tell me what does the word "Bible" mean? And what is the last book
>in the Bible? Izzy
>
>
>
>   _
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PM
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>
>
>When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the 
Revelation?

>There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But,
>certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said.
>
>
>
>Jd
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>Myth - It is finished already
>
>And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy
>and in Proverbs.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > writes:
>
>In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations.
>
>From: ShieldsFamily
>
>
>
>You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or
>subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
>
>
>

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know

how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

So then, CPL, 'his' subjective witness is unacceptable while yours is? He
did not quote Ja 1:5fg but it was his obvious reference.


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 07, 2005 10:27
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


> Lance, the gist of his reply was "I choose no  answer, for the simple
reason
> there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question."
>
> So, I eliminated the trick questions and posed the two serious ones in
hope
> that he would reconsider. They are not gobbledygook, or rediculous.
Perhaps
> he does not want to share his witness because in this forum it will not
> sound like a valid witness. Nobody wants to hear that their subjective
> feelings are not a valid witness, especially when there are no bible
verses
> to support that. That is fine, too. He is a big boy. He can reconsider and
> choose again not to answer.
>
> Perry
>
> >From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:15:28 -0400
> >
> >He already answered these. James 1:5 fg/
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: June 07, 2005 09:01
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >
> >
> > > Blaine, there were a couple of detractor questions, but here are the
> >ones
> >I
> > > think you will be able to answer:
> > >
> > > 1. Is the "witness of the spirit" to which you referred the "burning
in
> >the
> > > bosom" that mormons say they get as a witness?
> > >
> > > 2. Do you  have any biblical references that this burning feeling
> >(a.k.a.,
> > > the "burning in the bosom") is a valid  witness of the spirit?
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> > > >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:19:43 EDT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >In a message dated 6/6/2005 3:28:38 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > >
> > > >Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Whoa,  Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective
> >heartburn
> > > >feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do you
> >have
> > > >any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid
witness?
> > > >Could
> > > >it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by  your
resident
> > > >demon?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Blaine:  Sorry, but none of the above rings a true sound for me.   It
> > > >sounds
> > > >like goeldygook, or whatever.  At best, it is a rediculous
> >statement,
> > > >which deserves no answer, or a rediculous answer.  I choose no
answer,
> >for
> > > >the
> > > >simple reason there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may
> >know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> >http://www.InnGlory.org
> > >
> > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
> >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> >--
> >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> >know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> >http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
> >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Don't you think it is significant that the warning is written in the last
chapter of The Book? Iz 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:39 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Izzy, I have to vote for "this book" in Rev 22:18,19 applying specifically
to the Revelation. I used to try to apply it to the whole Bible (in a debate
with a mormon many years ago) , and I DO believe that the general principle
applies to the whole Bible, but in particular believe that these verses are
referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.

Perry

>From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: 
>Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500
>
>  Rev 2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of 
>this
>book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are
>written in this book;19and if anyone takes away from the words of the
>book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of 
>life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
>
>JD, tell me what does the word "Bible" mean? And what is the last book 
>in the Bible? Izzy
>
>
>
>   _
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PM
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>
>
>When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?
>There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But,
>certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said.
>
>
>
>Jd
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>
>Myth - It is finished already
>
>And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy 
>and in Proverbs.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > writes:
>
>In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations.
>
>From: ShieldsFamily
>
>
>
>You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or 
>subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
>
>
>


--
"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 vs DaveH




JD, join the "Why We Can't Believe What We Read in the Bible 
Club".  Izzy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:48 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Perry vs DaveH



 In addition, "proof-texting" is the misuse of scripture.   
All ae suspectible to this failure.   We look for verses with similar 
wording and assume those passages have the same meaning and 
context. -Original Message-From: Lance Muir 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 
Jun 2005 08:24:11 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





'Proof-texting' can apply to more than the 
Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis GWB. How did 
you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone, often absent 
appropriate context,  with the intent of critiquing the person they 
quote.
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 07:39
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  
  
  How would they know 
  if they?ve never tried? Anyway, ?proof-texting? is a term THEY use to shoot 
  down scripture quoters.  
Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




I guess the prophets in the Bible didn't care about the people 
they "insulted" either.  No wonder John the Baptist was beheaded. (By 
people like you?) Izzy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:51 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Perry vs DaveH



The decision to commit to actions and wording that is objectionable to 
others is living proof that those who do such things no longer care about 
those whom they insult.   
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Lance Muir 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 
Jun 2005 09:09:42 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own 
type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that 
profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, 
the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds 
humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this 
point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking 
in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 08:30
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  
  To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor 
  - it's a cultural thing Lance.
  Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the 
  prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting 
  on the toilet?

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Izzy, I have to vote for "this book" in Rev 22:18,19 applying specifically 
to the Revelation. I used to try to apply it to the whole Bible (in a debate 
with a mormon many years ago) , and I DO believe that the general principle 
applies to the whole Bible, but in particular believe that these verses are 
referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.


Perry


From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500

 Rev 2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are
written in this book;19and if anyone takes away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life 
and

from the holy city, which are written in this book.

JD, tell me what does the word "Bible" mean? And what is the last book in
the Bible? Izzy



  _

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?
There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But,
certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said.



Jd


-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Myth - It is finished already

And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and 
in

Proverbs.



On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations.

From: ShieldsFamily 




You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or
subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy






--
"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 vs DaveH

Did someone burn Mormon underwear?
 
When did holding something in your hand become a desecration.
 
You guys are either loosing hold of reality, or as usual blowing it out of proportion to gain better traction. Another case of False witness & misrepresentation. Go d will hold you accountable no matter how lightly you percieve the consequences of twisting & misrepresenting and tale bearing falsehoods. No one "desecrated" "burned" "broke up weddings" called women "whores", or any such thing. 
 
LDS: "WAH WAH they are desecrating our undies!"
LDS: "How would you like it if they burnt your prayer shawl?"
WAH WAH WAH 
 
There shall be WAILING & GNASHING of TEETH
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:








Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 07, 2005 08:30
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting on the toilet?
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:17:02 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

It's about as funny as it would be for you and your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as funny as David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness the desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright funny'!

From: ShieldsFamily 
Probably because its downright funny!

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenStreet preachers just quote what it says.  IzzyDAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
DaveH, There are TT'ers who get criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they think it should say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those who quote.  Street preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy
 



 
The Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?
-- ~~~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.
 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

It is done for show & tell not humor.
Some LDS are not initiated into the "meatier" doctrines of Mormonism and are shocked to learn of the protective undergarments. This creates a problem for the LDS, since they have to explain to their own members why they have kept it secret from them for possibly years.
 
wearing magic underwear will not protect the wearer from harm anymore than a saint on the dashboard or scapular around the neck.
They are a work of the flesh.
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:








To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting on the toilet?
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:17:02 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

It's about as funny as it would be for you and your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as funny as David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness the desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright funny'!

From: ShieldsFamily 
Probably because its downright funny!

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenStreet preachers just quote what it says.  IzzyDAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
DaveH, There are TT'ers who get criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they think it should say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those who quote.  Street preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy
 



 
The Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?
-- ~~~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.
 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Lance, the gist of his reply was "I choose no  answer, for the simple reason 
there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question."


So, I eliminated the trick questions and posed the two serious ones in hope 
that he would reconsider. They are not gobbledygook, or rediculous.  Perhaps 
he does not want to share his witness because in this forum it will not 
sound like a valid witness. Nobody wants to hear that their subjective 
feelings are not a valid witness, especially when there are no bible verses 
to support that. That is fine, too. He is a big boy. He can reconsider and 
choose again not to answer.


Perry


From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:15:28 -0400

He already answered these. James 1:5 fg/


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 07, 2005 09:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


> Blaine, there were a couple of detractor questions, but here are the 
ones

I
> think you will be able to answer:
>
> 1. Is the "witness of the spirit" to which you referred the "burning in
the
> bosom" that mormons say they get as a witness?
>
> 2. Do you  have any biblical references that this burning feeling 
(a.k.a.,

> the "burning in the bosom") is a valid  witness of the spirit?
>
> Perry
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:19:43 EDT
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 6/6/2005 3:28:38 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >Whoa,  Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective 
heartburn

> >feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do you
have
> >any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid  witness?
> >Could
> >it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by  your resident
> >demon?
> >
> >
> >
> >Blaine:  Sorry, but none of the above rings a true sound for me.   It
> >sounds
> >like goeldygook, or whatever.  At best, it is a rediculous
statement,
> >which deserves no answer, or a rediculous answer.  I choose no  answer,
for
> >the
> >simple reason there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question.
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


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


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



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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




Does this apply to yourself JD, or is it just 
for "others"?  Do you think DM is humored every time he is
referred to as legalistic and a false prophet among 
other things and what about repaying Kevin evil for
what you perceive to be evil?
 
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:50:48 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  The decision to commit to actions and wording that is objectionable to 
  others is living proof that those who do such things no longer care about 
  those whom they insult.   
   
  JD  From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  

  Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own 
  type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that 
  profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the 
  flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds 
  humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this 
  point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking 
  in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

To each his own; everyone 
has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the 
prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be 
sitting on the toilet?

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


The more important question IMO is "what did this word "bible" mean to the Apostle John in 98 AD.  
 
JD  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:35:51 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH






 Rev 2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;    19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
JD, tell me what does the word ?Bible? mean? And what is the last book in the Bible? Izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. 

 

Jd
 -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


Myth - It is finished already

And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.

 

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


From: ShieldsFamily 

You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

How did you respond when they did it?
 
Better question. How did you respond when Jesus did it?
"IT IS WRITTEN" JesusLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:








'Proof-texting' can apply to more than the Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis GWB. How did you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone, often absent appropriate context,  with the intent of critiquing the person they quote.
 
- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 07, 2005 07:39
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


How would they know if theyve never tried? Anyway, proof-texting is a term THEY use to shoot down scripture quoters.  Izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
 
DAVEH:   Can you blame them?  Seems like it may be a defensive technique.  If they quote a passage, they may fear being criticized as proof-texting.ShieldsFamily wrote: 
DaveH, regarding your previous question, please take note of this technique of the Bible quote haters:  Instead of specifically quoting a particular statement to explain their views they throw an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in there if you just can see it--find it for yourself!"  Thus they think they are justified for using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not being specific (because it really isn't "in there"!).  Izzy
 



 

The Bible does NOT speak for itself. On this (see my formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is it that even among the 'biblicists' who are mature there exists such minimal agreement? This ain't tennis or ping pong folks, this is the God of the Cosmos! Throwing out bible verses which simply elucidate YOUR view (not HIS) leaves people confused. That's why I referenced 2 Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter).. 

Because men love darkness so much that they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be made 

manifest.

 

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


The Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?ShieldsFamily wrote: 

The Bible speaks for itself.  According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy
 
-- ~~~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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


 
You persist in missing Lance's point.  
 
There are similar listings on the internet to this found below.  No one is arguing that apocrapha is scripture.  Continue with that line of debate and you are wasting time.  
 
JD
 





Matthew 4:4
Wisdom 16:26

Matthew 4:15
1 Maccabees 5:15

Matthew 5:18
Baruch 4:1

Matthew 5:28
Sirach 9:8

Matthew 5:2ss
Sirach 25:7-12

Matthew 5:4
Sirach 48:24

Matthew 6:7
Sirach 7:14

Matthew 6:9
Sirach 23:1, 4

Matthew 6:10
1 Maccabees 3:60

Matthew 6:12
Sirach 28:2

Matthew 6:13
Sirach 33:1

Matthew 6:20
Sirach 29:10s

Matthew 6:23
Sirach 14:10

Matthew 6:33
Wisdom 7:11

Matthew 7:12
Tobit 4:15

Matthew 7:12
Sirach 31:15

Matthew 7:16
Sirach 27:6

Matthew 8:11
Baruch 4:37

Matthew 8:21
Tobit 4:3

Matthew 9:36
Judith 11:19

Matthew 9:38
1 Maccabees 12:17

Matthew 10:16
Sirach 13:17

Matthew 11:14
Sirach 48:10

Matthew 11:22
Judith 16:17

Matthew 11:25
Tobit 7:17

Matthew 11:25
Sirach 51:1

Matthew 11:28
Sirach 24:19

Matthew 11:28
Sirach 51:23

Matthew 11:29
Sirach 6:24s

Matthew 11:29
Sirach 6:28s

Matthew 11:29
Sirach 51:26s

Matthew 12:4
2 Maccabees 10:3

Matthew 12:5
Sirach 40:15

Matthew 13:44
Sirach 20:30s

Matthew 16:18
Wisdom 16:13

Matthew 16:22
1 Maccabees 2:21

Matthew 16:27
Sirach 35:22

Matthew 17:11
Sirach 48:10

Matthew 18:10
Tobit 12:15

Matthew 20:2
Tobit 5:15

Matthew 22:13
Wisdom 17:2

Matthew 23:38
Tobit 14:4

Matthew 24:15
1 Maccabees 1:54

Matthew 24:15
2 Maccabees 8:17

Matthew 24:16
1 Maccabees 2:28

Matthew 25:35
Tobit 4:17

Matthew 25:36
Sirach 7:32-35

Matthew 26:38
Sirach 37:2

Matthew 27:24
Daniel 13:46

Matthew 27:43
Wisdom 2:13

Matthew 27:43
Wisdom 2:18-20
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:26:34 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





1. Purgatory is one that is taken from 1 or 2 Macc - Izzy being a redeemed rc probably knows more
2. The rapture is one interpretation among others, it is not declared canon by the rcc or anyone else.
Let's face it Lance - your Bishop has erred.
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:20:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Two issues arise:
 
1. Which 'heretical doctrines' arise from 'them'?
2. IFF some actually do then, are they offset by those 'heretical doctrines' arising from the 'accepted canon'. Example:The 'rapture' doctrine from 1 Thess.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


The decision to commit to actions and wording that is objectionable to others is living proof that those who do such things no longer care about those whom they insult.   
 
JD  -Original Message-From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:09:42 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 07, 2005 08:30
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting on the toilet?

FW: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









Then why watch them? J

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:18
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 



In the movies sometimes they don't care
about what God said.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: June 06, 2005 13:05





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





 



After God said not to add to it? I think
NOT. Izzy

 







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:01
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to
FINISH the book of Revelations. 







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: June 06, 2005 12:38





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





 



You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is
to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy

 







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:06
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH





I





Blaine:  Aren't you converted to Mormonism by now Izzy? 
:>)  I'm shocked
you don't know the answer.  It is BOTH.  Since they are
the same individuals!  I do, however understand
why you might think otherwise.  Anyone subjected to the watered-down
doctrines of traditional Christianity would tend, I would think, to uphold
these false niceties, even in the face of strong evidence to the
contrary.  Satan has a way of lulling the unwary into a sense of false
security, engendered by his presentation of a few superficial truths with his
fundamental falsehoods.  This pairing is as old as the Garden of
Eden, when Satan told Eve she would not surely die, AND that she would gain
wisdom, the latter being the truth, and the former a lie.





 





n a message dated 6/6/2005 9:23:07 AM
Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





The Bible speaks for itself. 
According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God
of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


 In addition, "proof-texting" is the misuse of scripture.   All ae suspectible to this failure.   We look for verses with similar wording and assume those passages have the same meaning and context. -Original Message-From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:24:11 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





'Proof-texting' can apply to more than the Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis GWB. How did you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone, often absent appropriate context,  with the intent of critiquing the person they quote.
 
- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 07, 2005 07:39
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


How would they know if they?ve never tried? Anyway, ?proof-texting? is a term THEY use to shoot down scripture quoters.  Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









Sure makes me think it’s all about
JSmith and the BoM.  Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:27
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 





I see you have not read Charlotte's Web.  It is about a spider
that spun webs with English words incorporated, which in turn were assumed by
Humans to refer to the pig who lived in the sty beneath the webs.  
These descriptive adjectives were then assumed to be the pig's character
traits.  No proof, no nothing, just the words, appearing in print form,
were enough to convince the masses that the pig was super-normal.  He
became celebrated, because Charlotte
the spider said he was such--IN PRINT.  Just
a spoof on the gullibility of human-kind.  





Blaine





In a message dated 6/6/2005 11:02:16 AM
Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





Are you so gullible that YOU believe
everything that is in print? Like the 
Book of Mormon, Pearl
of Great Price, and the D&C.

E. B. White, the author of Charlotte's
Web, was born in 1899. How could the 
story be a basis for what E. B. Stennhouse wrote in 1875???

Perry

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









 Rev
2218I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to
them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;    19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which
are written in this book.

JD, tell me what does the word
“Bible” mean? And what is the last book in the Bible? Izzy

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:03
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 







When did the Bible come into existence  -- 
before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the
"Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should
not be adding to what God has said. 





 





Jd



 
-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





Myth - It is
finished already





And this warning is
not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.





 





On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:







In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book
of Revelations. 







From: ShieldsFamily 





You are wrong again, Blaine. 
Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did
you miss that part? Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









So what does Blaine have to say for
himself? 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:17
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 



Myth - It is finished
already





And this warning is
not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.





 





On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:







In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to
FINISH the book of Revelations. 







From: ShieldsFamily 





You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is
to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy



 







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]








Blaine:  Aren't you converted to Mormonism by now Izzy? 
:>)  I'm shocked
you don't know the answer.  It is BOTH.  Since they
are the same individuals!  I do, however
understand why you might think otherwise.  Anyone subjected to the
watered-down doctrines of traditional Christianity would tend, I would
think, to uphold these false niceties, even in the face of strong evidence to
the contrary.  Satan has a way of lulling the unwary into a sense of false
security, engendered by his presentation of a few superficial truths with his
fundamental falsehoods.  This pairing is as old as the Garden of
Eden, when Satan told Eve she would not surely die, AND that she would gain
wisdom, the latter being the truth, and the former a lie.





 





n a message dated 6/6/2005 9:23:07 AM
Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





The Bible speaks for itself. 
According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God
of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









Judy, I believe that Lance is the one who
coined the term in 1914, so you’ll just have to forgive him.  Izzy

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:25
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 



Before you get carried away here Lance,
I seem to recall that not so long ago you referred to me on this public
internet list as 'one funny broad' - and as a child of God I find this term
offensive; are you aware of it's origin? - if not I will enlighten you
(this is from Plateau Press.com):





jennifer: How/where/when/why did the word 'broad' get used to
describe a woman?

Doug: This term started out as US criminal slang. The original
meaning was 'a prostitute' and when it entered mainstream usage it broadened
(sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist) its meaning to include so-called
women of loose morals and later women of the uneducated or lower classes. So as
you can see the term has never been what you might call respectful. It is first
cited in 1914. In these days of 'enlightened behaviour' the term is considered
apropos and is fast falling into disuse.





I understand that you were 'well
meaning' and am using this to show how easy it is to offend when ppl are prone
to take up an offense.  I don't do that because I live by Psalm 119:165
and so God's peace guards my heart and mind.  jt 

 





 





On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:09:42 -0400
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:







Jt says 'to each his own, everyone
has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may
assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or
desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that
which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and
non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the
worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.







From: Judy Taylor 





 





To each his own; everyone has their own
type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.





Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah
to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt.
 Carmel by telling them
their god just might be sitting on the toilet?





 





On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:17:02 -0400
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:







It's about as funny as it would be
for you and your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as
funny as David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness
the desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright
funny'!







From: ShieldsFamily 





Probably because it’s downright
funny!



 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Street preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy

DAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?

ShieldsFamily wrote: 



DaveH, There are TT'ers who get criticized
for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote what it says, but
replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they think it should
say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those who quote.  Street
preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy

 







 

The
Bible speaks for itself.

DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are
there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?  
Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street
Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?

 

-- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




Oh sorry about that Iz, good for you.  BTW has 
anyone seen Christine - missing her. jt
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:22:05 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  Actually I am not a 
  former RCC.  My parents were RCC and my brother.  It never took with 
  me. Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  1. Purgatory is one that is taken from 
  1 or 2 Macc - Izzy being a redeemed rc probably knows 
  more
  
  2. The rapture is one interpretation 
  among others, it is not declared canon by the rcc or anyone 
  else.
  
  Let's face it Lance - your Bishop has 
  erred.
  
   
  
  On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:20:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

Two issues 
arise:

 

1. Which 'heretical doctrines' 
arise from 'them'?

2. IFF some actually do then, 
are they offset by those 'heretical doctrines' arising from the 'accepted 
canon'. Example:The 'rapture' doctrine from 1 
Thess.

  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
   
  And the RCC 
  adopted them as “canon” to support their heretical doctrines. Izzy 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin 
  Deegan
  
  JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of 
  misinformation.
  
  The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 
  
  
  The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was 
  printed as a tool like the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as 
  part of the text as in the Oldest & best 
  manuscripts
  
  The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT 
  either only in the RC bibles.
  
  The minister of questions chooses to 
  mislead.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   
You may find this 
interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did 
you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the 
mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant 
bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New 
Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   


 

Jd

 
-Original 
Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
    TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 
Jun 2005 16:10:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
DaveH


What were 
the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching 
against?  Also your favorite epistle

James is 
said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the 
ascension.  Could we be

missing 
something here JD?

 

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 
14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
  
  When did the Bible come 
  into existence  --  before or after the 
  Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first 
  century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to 
  what God has said. Jd
  From: Judy 
  Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Myth - 
  It is finished already
  
  And this 
  warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in 
  Proverbs.
  
   
  
  On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 
  13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

In 'Prophecy: The 
Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  You are wrong again, 
  Blaine.  Revelations says 
  that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you 
  miss that part? Izzy
   
  
   
  __Do 
  You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
  around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









Lance, FYI: It isn’t sacred if God
doesn’t say it is sacred.  Somebody thinking it is doesn’t make it
so.  Izzy

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:10
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 



Jt says 'to each his own, everyone
has their own type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may
assume that profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or
desecrate the flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that
which one finds humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and
non-Mormon on this point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the
worshippers on walking in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: June 07, 2005 08:30





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





 





To each his own; everyone has their own
type of humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.





Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah
to mock the prophets of Baal at Mt.
 Carmel by telling them
their god just might be sitting on the toilet?





 





On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:17:02 -0400
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:







It's about as funny as it would be
for you and your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as
funny as David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness
the desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright
funny'!







From: ShieldsFamily 





Probably because it’s downright
funny!



 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Street preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy

DAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?

ShieldsFamily wrote: 



DaveH, There are TT'ers who get criticized
for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote what it says, but
replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they think it should
say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those who quote.  Street
preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy

 







 

The
Bible speaks for itself.

DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are
there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?  
Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street
Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?

 

-- ~~~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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









Lance your comment is irrelevant to the discussion. 
Izzy

 





From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>





'Proof-texting' can apply to more
than the Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis
GWB. How did you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone,
often absent appropriate context,  with the intent of critiquing the
person they quote.





 







From: ShieldsFamily






 



How would they know if they’ve never
tried? Anyway, “proof-texting” is a term THEY use to shoot down
scripture quoters.  Izzy

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen



DAVEH:   Can you blame them?  Seems
like it may be a defensive technique.  If they quote a passage, they may
fear being criticized as proof-texting.

ShieldsFamily wrote: 

DaveH, regarding your previous question,
please take note of this technique of the Bible quote haters:  Instead of
specifically quoting a particular statement to explain their views they throw
an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in there if you just can see
it--find it for yourself!"  Thus they think they are justified for
using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not being specific (because it
really isn't "in there"!).  Izzy

 







 



The Bible does NOT speak for itself. On this (see my
formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is it that even among the
'biblicists' who are mature there exists such minimal agreement? This ain't
tennis or ping pong folks, this is the God of the Cosmos! Throwing out bible
verses which simply elucidate YOUR view (not HIS) leaves people confused.
That's why I referenced 2 Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter). 





Because men love darkness so much that
they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be made 



manifest.





 





On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:







The Bible speaks for itself.

DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are
there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?  
Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street
Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?

ShieldsFamily wrote: 





The Bible speaks for itself. 
According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God
of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy



 





 

-- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




Before you get carried away here Lance, I seem to 
recall that not so long ago you referred to me on this public internet list as 
'one funny broad' - and as a child of God I find this term offensive; are you 
aware of it's origin? - if not I will enlighten you (this is from Plateau 
Press.com):

jennifer: How/where/when/why 
did the word 'broad' get used to describe a woman?Doug: This term started out as 
US criminal slang. The original meaning was 'a prostitute' and when it entered 
mainstream usage it broadened (sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist) its 
meaning to include so-called women of loose morals and later women of the 
uneducated or lower classes. So as you can see the term has never been what you 
might call respectful. It is first cited in 1914. In these days of 'enlightened 
behaviour' the term is considered apropos and is fast falling into 
disuse.
I understand that you were 'well meaning' and am using 
this to show how easy it is to offend when ppl are prone to take up an 
offense.  I don't do that because I live by Psalm 119:165 and so God's 
peace guards my heart and mind.  jt

 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:09:42 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own 
  type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that 
  profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the 
  flag, the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds 
  humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this 
  point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking 
  in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
To each his own; everyone has their own type of 
humor - it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the 
prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be 
sitting on the toilet?
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:17:02 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  It's about as funny as it would be for you 
  and your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as 
  funny as David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to 
  witness the desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 
  'downright funny'!
  
From: ShieldsFamily 
Probably 
because its downright funny!

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave 
HansenStreet 
preachers just quote what it says.  
IzzyDAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to 
wave underwear?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
DaveH, There 
are TT'ers who get criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those 
who don't quote what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own 
ideas of what they think it should say--that's why they don't quote and 
don't like those who quote.  Street preachers just quote what it 
says.  Izzy
 



 
The Bible 
speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you 
sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers 
wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The 
Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel 
the need to proclaim it from the street?
-- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-07 Thread Terry Clifton





Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Matthew Mark, Luke, bel & the Dragon?
  only in the Catholic counterfiets!

  

You left out first and second Ralph.

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









Actually I am not a former RCC.  My
parents were RCC and my brother.  It never took with me. Izzy

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 6:27
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 



1. Purgatory is one that is taken from 1
or 2 Macc - Izzy being a redeemed rc probably knows more





2. The rapture is one interpretation
among others, it is not declared canon by the rcc or anyone else.





Let's face it Lance - your Bishop has
erred.





 





On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:20:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:







Two issues arise:





 





1. Which 'heretical doctrines' arise from 'them'?





2. IFF some actually do then, are they offset by those
'heretical doctrines' arising from the 'accepted canon'. Example:The 'rapture'
doctrine from 1 Thess.







From: ShieldsFamily






 



And the RCC adopted them as
“canon” to support their heretical doctrines. Izzy 

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Deegan





JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of misinformation.





The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 





The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was printed as a tool like
the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as part of the text as in the
Oldest & best manuscripts





The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT either only in the RC
bibles.





The minister of questions chooses to mislead.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:











http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/  
You may find this interesting.   As far as
"adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a
part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The
so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers
old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them,
themselves.   





 





Jd





 




-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:10:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





What were the more
noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your
favorite epistle





James is said to
have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the
ascension.  Could we be





missing something
here JD?





 





On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:











When did the Bible come into existence  -- 
before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the
"Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should
not be adding to what God has said. Jd





From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is
finished already





And this warning is
not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.





 





On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:







In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book
of Revelations. 







From: ShieldsFamily 





You are wrong again, Blaine. 
Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did
you miss that part? Izzy



 













 













__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









I guess it depends upon your perspective. 
To me mormon underwear is not a sacred thing (but a silly thing!).  Maybe it is
to you. Izzy

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 6:17
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 



It's about as funny as it would be
for you and your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as
funny as David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness
the desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright
funny'!







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: June 07, 2005 07:46





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





 



Probably because it’s downright
funny!

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:31
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 

Street preachers just quote what it
says.  Izzy

DAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?

ShieldsFamily wrote: 

DaveH, There are TT'ers who get criticized
for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote what it says, but
replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they think it should say--that's
why they don't quote and don't like those who quote.  Street preachers
just quote what it says.  Izzy

 







 

The
Bible speaks for itself.

DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are
there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If
the The
Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the
need to proclaim it from the street?

 

-- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

He already answered these. James 1:5 fg/


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 07, 2005 09:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


> Blaine, there were a couple of detractor questions, but here are the ones
I
> think you will be able to answer:
>
> 1. Is the "witness of the spirit" to which you referred the "burning in
the
> bosom" that mormons say they get as a witness?
>
> 2. Do you  have any biblical references that this burning feeling (a.k.a.,
> the "burning in the bosom") is a valid  witness of the spirit?
>
> Perry
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:19:43 EDT
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 6/6/2005 3:28:38 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >Whoa,  Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburn
> >feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do you
have
> >any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid  witness?
> >Could
> >it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by  your resident
> >demon?
> >
> >
> >
> >Blaine:  Sorry, but none of the above rings a true sound for me.   It
> >sounds
> >like goeldygook, or whatever.  At best, it is a rediculous
statement,
> >which deserves no answer, or a rediculous answer.  I choose no  answer,
for
> >the
> >simple reason there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question.
>
>
> --
> "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 vs DaveH




Jt says 'to each his own, everyone has their own 
type of humour - it's a cultural thing, Lance.' Therefore we may assume that 
profaning the 'sacred' matters not to her. So make fun of or desecrate the flag, 
the Scriptures or Mormon undergarments, ...all in that which one finds 
humorouseh? Can I get an 'Amen' from all, Mormon and non-Mormon on this 
point by Judy? Try burning a Koran at a Mosque when the worshippers on walking 
in. Tell them it's just a 'cultural thingy'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 08:30
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  
  To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor 
  - it's a cultural thing Lance.
  Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the 
  prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting 
  on the toilet?
   
  On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:17:02 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
It's about as funny as it would be for you and 
your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as funny as 
David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness the 
desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright 
funny'!

  From: ShieldsFamily 
  Probably because 
  its downright funny!
  
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave 
  HansenStreet preachers 
  just quote what it says.  IzzyDAVEH:  Then 
  why do some feel the need to wave underwear?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  DaveH, There are 
  TT'ers who get criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those who 
  don't quote what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own ideas of 
  what they think it should say--that's why they don't quote and don't like 
  those who quote.  Street preachers just quote what it says.  
  Izzy
   
  
  
  
   
  The 
  Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are 
  you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers 
  wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The 
  Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel 
  the need to proclaim it from the street?
  -- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Blaine, there were a couple of detractor questions, but here are the ones I 
think you will be able to answer:


1. Is the "witness of the spirit" to which you referred the "burning in the 
bosom" that mormons say they get as a witness?


2. Do you  have any biblical references that this burning feeling (a.k.a., 
the "burning in the bosom") is a valid  witness of the spirit?


Perry


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:19:43 EDT


In a message dated 6/6/2005 3:28:38 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:


Whoa,  Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburn
feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do you  have
any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid  witness? 
Could

it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by  your resident
demon?



Blaine:  Sorry, but none of the above rings a true sound for me.   It 
sounds

like goeldygook, or whatever.  At best, it is a rediculous  statement,
which deserves no answer, or a rediculous answer.  I choose no  answer, for 
the

simple reason there is no serious answer to a rediculous  question.



--
"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 vs DaveH




As to #2, Judy, whether the 'rapture doctrine' 
serves best to illustrate my point or not, that heretical doctrines arise in 
greater numbers from the canon itself, THAT WAS MY POINT. It was a 'non-rcc' 
point. Believers do the same thing with the non-apocryphal 
scriptures.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 08:26
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  
  1. Purgatory is one that is taken from 1 or 2 
  Macc - Izzy being a redeemed rc probably knows more
  2. The rapture is one interpretation among others, it 
  is not declared canon by the rcc or anyone else.
  Let's face it Lance - your Bishop has 
  erred.
   
  On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:20:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Two issues arise:
 
1. Which 'heretical doctrines' arise from 
'them'?
2. IFF some actually do then, are they offset 
by those 'heretical doctrines' arising from the 'accepted canon'. 
Example:The 'rapture' doctrine from 1 Thess.

  From: ShieldsFamily 
   
  
  And the RCC 
  adopted them as canon to support their heretical doctrines. Izzy 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin 
  Deegan 
  
  JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of 
  misinformation.
  
  The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 
  
  
  The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was 
  printed as a tool like the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as 
  part of the text as in the Oldest & best 
  manuscripts
  
  The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT 
  either only in the RC bibles.
  
  The minister of questions chooses to 
  mislead.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   
You may find this 
interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did 
you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the 
mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant 
bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New 
Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   


 

Jd

 
-Original 
Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
    TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 
Jun 2005 16:10:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
DaveH


What were 
the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching 
against?  Also your favorite epistle

James is 
said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the 
ascension.  Could we be

missing 
something here JD?

 

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 
14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
  
  When did the Bible come 
  into existence  --  before or after the 
  Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first 
  century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to 
  what God has said. Jd
  From: Judy 
  Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Myth - 
  It is finished already
  
  And this 
  warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in 
  Proverbs.
  
   
  
  On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 
  13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

In 'Prophecy: The 
Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  You are wrong again, 
  Blaine.  Revelations says 
  that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you 
  miss that part? Izzy
   
  
   
  __Do 
  You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
  around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




MY POINT HERE HAD TO DO WITH THE FINE ART OF 
'proof-texting' not with either of these two gentlemen or, with politics, where 
such takes place on a daily basis. It also takes place herein (TT).

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 08:33
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
  
  After hearing them once who would pay any mind 
  to what Michael Moore and John Kerry have to say?
   
  From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  'Proof-texting' can apply to more than the 
  Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis GWB. How 
  did you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone, often 
  absent appropriate context,  with the intent of critiquing the person 
  they quote.
   
  
From: 
ShieldsFamily 
 

How would they know 
if theyve never tried? Anyway, proof-texting is a term THEY use to shoot 
down scripture quoters.  Izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave 
Hansen 
DAVEH:   Can you blame them?  Seems 
like it may be a defensive technique.  If they quote a passage, they 
may fear being criticized as proof-texting.ShieldsFamily wrote: 

DaveH, regarding 
your previous question, please take note of this technique of the Bible 
quote haters:  Instead of specifically quoting a particular statement 
to explain their views they throw an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in 
there if you just can see it--find it for yourself!"  Thus they think 
they are justified for using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not 
being specific (because it really isn't "in there"!).  
Izzy
 



 

The Bible does NOT speak for 
itself. On this (see my formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is 
it that even among the 'biblicists' who are mature there exists such minimal 
agreement? This ain't tennis or ping pong folks, this is the God of the 
Cosmos! Throwing out bible verses which simply elucidate YOUR view (not HIS) 
leaves people confused. That's why I referenced 2 Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter). 


  Because men love darkness so much 
  that they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be 
  made 
  
  manifest.
  
   
  
  On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

The Bible 
speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you 
sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers 
wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The 
Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel 
the need to proclaim it from the street?ShieldsFamily wrote: 


  The Bible 
  speaks for itself.  According to JSmith the Bible is not 
  enough.  Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of 
  the Book of Mormon? Izzy
 
-- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




To each his own; everyone has their own type of humor - 
it's a cultural thing Lance.
Do you think it was ungodly for Elijah to mock the 
prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel by telling them their god just might be sitting 
on the toilet?
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:17:02 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  It's about as funny as it would be for you and 
  your Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as funny as 
  David or Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness the 
  desecration of the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright 
  funny'!
  
From: ShieldsFamily 
Probably because 
its downright funny!

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave 
HansenStreet preachers 
just quote what it says.  IzzyDAVEH:  Then 
why do some feel the need to wave underwear?ShieldsFamily wrote: 

DaveH, There are 
TT'ers who get criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't 
quote what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what 
they think it should say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those 
who quote.  Street preachers just quote what it says.  
Izzy
 



 
The 
Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are 
you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers 
wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The 
Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the 
need to proclaim it from the street?
-- ~~~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.

[TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




After hearing them once who would pay any mind to 
what Michael Moore and John Kerry have to say?
 
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
'Proof-texting' can apply to more than the 
Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis GWB. How did 
you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone, often absent 
appropriate context,  with the intent of critiquing the person they 
quote.
 

  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
   
  
  How would they know 
  if theyve never tried? Anyway, proof-texting is a term THEY use to shoot 
  down scripture quoters.  Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave 
  Hansen 
  DAVEH:   Can you blame them?  Seems 
  like it may be a defensive technique.  If they quote a passage, they may 
  fear being criticized as proof-texting.ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  DaveH, regarding your 
  previous question, please take note of this technique of the Bible quote 
  haters:  Instead of specifically quoting a particular statement to 
  explain their views they throw an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in 
  there if you just can see it--find it for yourself!"  Thus they think 
  they are justified for using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not 
  being specific (because it really isn't "in there"!).  
  Izzy
   
  
  
  
   
  
  The Bible does NOT speak for 
  itself. On this (see my formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is it 
  that even among the 'biblicists' who are mature there exists such minimal 
  agreement? This ain't tennis or ping pong folks, this is the God of the 
  Cosmos! Throwing out bible verses which simply elucidate YOUR view (not HIS) 
  leaves people confused. That's why I referenced 2 Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter). 
  
  
Because men love darkness so much 
that they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be 
made 

manifest.

 

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  The Bible speaks 
  for itself.DAVEH:    Are you sure 
  about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to 
  speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The Bible speaks 
  for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to 
  proclaim it from the street?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  
The Bible 
speaks for itself.  According to JSmith the Bible is not 
enough.  Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of the 
Book of Mormon? Izzy
   
  -- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




1. Purgatory is one that is taken from 1 or 2 
Macc - Izzy being a redeemed rc probably knows more
2. The rapture is one interpretation among others, it 
is not declared canon by the rcc or anyone else.
Let's face it Lance - your Bishop has 
erred.
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:20:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Two issues arise:
   
  1. Which 'heretical doctrines' arise from 
  'them'?
  2. IFF some actually do then, are they offset by 
  those 'heretical doctrines' arising from the 'accepted canon'. Example:The 
  'rapture' doctrine from 1 Thess.
  
From: ShieldsFamily 
 

And the RCC adopted 
them as canon to support their heretical doctrines. Izzy 

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin 
Deegan 

JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of 
misinformation.

The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 


The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was 
printed as a tool like the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as 
part of the text as in the Oldest & best 
manuscripts

The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT 
either only in the RC bibles.

The minister of questions chooses to 
mislead.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  
  
  http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   
  You may find this 
  interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you 
  know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to 
  late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a 
  little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers 
  quoted from most of them, themselves.   
  
  
   
  
  Jd
  
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
      TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 
  2005 16:10:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  
  
  What were 
  the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching 
  against?  Also your favorite epistle
  
  James is 
  said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the 
  ascension.  Could we be
  
  missing 
  something here JD?
  
   
  
  On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 
  -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  



When did the Bible come 
into existence  --  before or after the 
Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first 
century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to 
what God has said. Jd
From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Myth - It 
is finished already

And this 
warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in 
Proverbs.

 

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 
13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  In 'Prophecy: The 
  Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 
  
  

From: 
ShieldsFamily 

You are wrong again, 
Blaine.  Revelations says that 
no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that 
part? Izzy
 

 
__Do 
You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

'Proof-texting' can apply to more than the
Scriptures. Michael Moore and John Kerry both employed it vis a vis GWB. How did
you respond when they did it? One may accurately quote someone, often absent
appropriate context, with the intent of critiquing the person they
quote.
- Original Message -

From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: June 07, 2005 07:39
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH

How would they know
if theyve never tried? Anyway, proof-texting is a term THEY use to shoot
down scripture quoters. Izzy

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:39
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH
DAVEH: Can you blame them? Seems
like it may be a defensive technique. If they quote a passage, they may
fear being criticized as proof-texting.ShieldsFamily wrote:

DaveH, regarding your
previous question, please take note of this technique of the Bible quote
haters: Instead of specifically quoting a particular statement to
explain their views they throw an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in
there if you just can see it--find it for yourself!" Thus they think
they are justified for using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not
being specific (because it really isn't "in there"!).
Izzy

The Bible does NOT speak for
itself. On this (see my formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is it
that even among the 'biblicists' who are mature there exists such minimal
agreement? This ain't tennis or ping pong folks, this is the God of the
Cosmos! Throwing out bible verses which simply elucidate YOUR view (not HIS)
leaves people confused. That's why I referenced 2 Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter).

Because men love darkness so much
that they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be
made

manifest.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:

The Bible speaks
for itself.DAVEH: Are you sure
about that, Izzy??? If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to
speak in its behalf? Hmm...If the The Bible speaks
for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to
proclaim it from the street?ShieldsFamily wrote:

The Bible
speaks for itself. According to JSmith the Bible is not
enough. Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of the
Book of Mormon? Izzy
-- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




Two issues arise:
 
1. Which 'heretical doctrines' arise from 
'them'?
2. IFF some actually do then, are they offset by 
those 'heretical doctrines' arising from the 'accepted canon'. Example:The 
'rapture' doctrine from 1 Thess.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 07:43
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  
  
  And the RCC adopted 
  them as canon to support their heretical doctrines. Izzy 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:16 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
   
  
  JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of 
  misinformation.
  
  The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 
  
  
  The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was printed 
  as a tool like the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as part of the 
  text as in the Oldest & best 
manuscripts
  
  The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT either 
  only in the RC bibles.
  
  The minister of questions chooses to 
  mislead.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   
You may find this 
interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you 
know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to 
late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little 
over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from 
most of them, themselves.   


 

Jd

 
-Original 
Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
    TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 
2005 16:10:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
DaveH


What were the 
more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  
Also your favorite epistle

James is said 
to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the 
ascension.  Could we be

missing 
something here JD?

 

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 
-0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
  
  When did the Bible come into 
  existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There 
  was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, 
  certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. 
  Jd
  From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Myth - It is 
  finished already
  
  And this 
  warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in 
  Proverbs.
  
   
  
  On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 
  -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

In 'Prophecy: The 
Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 


  
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  
  You are wrong again, 
  Blaine.  Revelations says that 
  no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that 
  part? Izzy
   
  
   
  __Do 
  You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




It's about as funny as it would be for you and your 
Jet-flying son to be present at a flag burning. It's about as funny as David or 
Kevin, while preaching at a 'sodomite' convention, to witness the desecration of 
the Holy Scriptures! Iz, these would be just 'downright funny'!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 07:46
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  
  
  Probably because its 
  downright funny!
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:31 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
   
  Street preachers just 
  quote what it says.  IzzyDAVEH:  Then why do 
  some feel the need to wave underwear?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  DaveH, There are 
  TT'ers who get criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't 
  quote what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they 
  think it should say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those who 
  quote.  Street preachers just quote what it says.  
  Izzy
   
  
  
  
   
  The 
  Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you 
  sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to 
  speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for 
  itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to proclaim 
  it from the street?
  -- ~~~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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









Probably because it’s downright
funny!

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:31
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 

Street preachers just quote what it
says.  Izzy

DAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?

ShieldsFamily wrote: 

DaveH, There are TT'ers who get criticized
for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote what it says, but
replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they think it should
say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those who quote.  Street
preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy

 







 

The
Bible speaks for itself.

DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are
there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?  
Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street
Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?





-- ~~~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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









And the RCC adopted them as “canon”
to support their heretical doctrines. Izzy 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:16
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 



JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of misinformation.





The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 





The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was printed as a tool like
the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as part of the text as in the
Oldest & best manuscripts





The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT either only in the RC
bibles.





The minister of questions chooses to mislead.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:











http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/  
You may find this interesting.   As far as
"adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a
part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The
so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers
old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.  






 





Jd





 



 
-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:10:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





What were the more
noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your
favorite epistle





James is said to
have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the
ascension.  Could we be





missing something
here JD?





 





On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:











When did the Bible come into existence  -- 
before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the
"Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should
not be adding to what God has said. Jd



 

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is
finished already





And this warning is
not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.





 





On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:







In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book
of Revelations. 







From: ShieldsFamily 





You are wrong again, Blaine. 
Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did
you miss that part? Izzy



 













 















__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH









How would they know if they’ve never
tried? Anyway, “proof-texting” is a term THEY use to shoot down
scripture quoters.  Izzy

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:39
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
DaveH



 

DAVEH:   Can you blame them?  Seems
like it may be a defensive technique.  If they quote a passage, they may
fear being criticized as proof-texting.

ShieldsFamily wrote: 

DaveH, regarding your previous question,
please take note of this technique of the Bible quote haters:  Instead of
specifically quoting a particular statement to explain their views they throw
an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in there if you just can see
it--find it for yourself!"  Thus they think they are justified for
using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not being specific (because it
really isn't "in there"!).  Izzy

 







 



The Bible does NOT speak for itself. On this (see my
formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is it that even among the
'biblicists' who are mature there exists such minimal agreement? This ain't
tennis or ping pong folks, this is the God of the Cosmos! Throwing out bible
verses which simply elucidate YOUR view (not HIS) leaves people confused.
That's why I referenced 2 Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter). 





Because men love darkness so much that
they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be made 



manifest.





 





On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:







The Bible speaks for itself.

DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are
there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?  
Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street
Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?

ShieldsFamily wrote: 





The Bible speaks for itself. 
According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God
of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy



 









-- ~~~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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




IFF the object of my/your 'faith/belief' is other 
than our perception then, how and, in what way(s) does that matter? As I've 
'read' you for some time now, I've seen you as one with the capacity to identify 
'meaning'. Do you know what I mean? I shall not evade 'your' 
question.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: June 07, 2005 00:20
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs 
  DaveH
  DAVEH:  I find that interesting, Lance.    
  May I ask how high (that may be a poor way of describing it) is your 
  faith?  IOW, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is an absolute abiding faith 
  in Jesus, and 5 is a mediocre faith, and 1 is a bare shadow of a 
  faithwhere do you feel you fit on that scale?   AndIf you 
  would rather not answer such a personal question, please do not feel compelled 
  to respond to this post.  Orif you feel like responding, but don't 
  want to risk the possible mocking or vicious attack of other TTerspost it 
  off-Forum.    Perhaps I did not properly consider your 
  original question.  I don't consider my faith to be placed in JS, but 
  rather in Jesus.   So, if somebody chooses to attack JS for whatever 
  reason,  I'm not too bothered.  To me it would be like they are 
  attacking Moses, or Abraham or Paul.  I hadn't thought about it before, 
  but perhaps that explains why I don't get in a huff when some detractors say 
  bad things about JS on TT.Lance Muir wrote: 
  

Speaking for myself...maybe.A not very good 
movie was made (look! he's at it again..does this guy do nothing but watch 
movies?) entitled 'The Body'; the premise of which was...wait for it...the 
discovery of the bones of Jesus..Well, there you go
 
This would be comparable to discovering a 
document in the handwriting of JS saying...hey..I was just funnin' 
y'all!!

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  June 06, 2005 10:37
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
  DAVEH:   Lance, from a subjective 
  standpoint...Do you believe Jesus is the Christ?  If so, could 
  anything be said to move you from that truth as you perceive it?  (I 
  also wonder the same about other TTer's feelings about thishoping to 
  hear some responses.)Lance Muir wrote: 
  

If I read you correctly then, absolutely 
nothing could be said ever to move you from your 'subjective truth'. I 
thought as much. 
DAVEH:  
  If I'm following you correctly on this Lance, the answer would be yes 
  to both questions.  (But I have not given it any deep thought, as 
  I'm a bit short on time this morning.)Lance Muir wrote: 
  



Blaine says that 'God gives direction to all liberally who ask 
in faith'. I asked you/DH whether or not the 'subjective' bottom 
line was James 1. Are you herein simply offering a resounding 'yes' 
to that query? Would this invariably be your fallback 
  position?-- 
~~~
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 vs DaveH

2005-06-07 Thread Blainerb473





In a message dated 6/6/2005 3:28:38 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
  Whoa, 
Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburn 
feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do you 
have any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid 
witness? Could it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by 
your resident demon?

Blaine:  Sorry, but none of the above rings a true sound for me.  
It sounds like goeldygook, or whatever.  At best, it is a rediculous 
statement, which deserves no answer, or a rediculous answer.  I choose no 
answer, for the simple reason there is no serious answer to a rediculous 
question.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Thanks, Perry for letting us know, that the concordance was accepted as scripture until at least 2005Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What? I thought Maps was the last book in the Bible, after the book of Concordance!>From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH>Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:17:51 -0700 (PDT)>>Twisting the facts to mislead.>Do you accept your maps as part of the bible until 2005? LOL>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.>>>Jd>>-Original Message->From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:16:35 -0400>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH>>.AOLPlainTextBody { margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,
 Verdana, Arial, >Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: #000; background-color: >#fff; }.AOLPlainTextBody pre { font-size: 9pt;}.AOLInlineAttachment { >margin: 10px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader { border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB; > background: #F9F9F9;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title { font: 11px Tahoma; > font-weight: bold; color: #66; background: #E9EAEB; >padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel { font: 11px >Tahoma; font-weight: bold; color: #66; padding: 1px 10px 1px >9px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue { font: 11px Tahoma; color: >#33;}The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish scriptures JD - are >you saying that the Bereans may have been>checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read them?>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:>>>http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ You may find >this
 interesting. As far as "adding" to the bible -- did you know that >the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's. > The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old. Christ >and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.>>Jd>>>From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 .AOLPlainTextBody { >FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, >Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: >#fff}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 .AOLPlainTextBody >PRE { FONT-SIZE: 9pt}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >.AOLInlineAttachment { MARGIN: >10px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >.AOLAttachmentHeader { BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e9eaeb 2px
 >solid}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; >BACKGROUND: #e9eaeb; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; COLOR: >#66; PADDING-TOP: >3px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 .AOLAttachmentHeader >.FieldLabel { PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 9px; PADDING-BOTTOM: >1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; COLOR: #66; PADDING-TOP: >1px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475> .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue { FONT: 11px Tahoma; COLOR: >#33}What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's >teaching against? Also your favorite epistle>James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs >following the ascension. Could we be>missing something here JD?>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:>When did the
 Bible come into existence -- before or after the Revelation? > There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times. But, >certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd>>>From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLPlainTextBody { >FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, >Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: >#fff}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLPlainTextBody PRE { > FONT-SIZE: 9pt}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLInlineAttachment { > MARGIN: 10px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLAttachmentHeader {
 > BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e9eaeb 2px >solid}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 >#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLAttachmentHeader >.Title { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; BACKGROUND: #e9eaeb; >PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; C

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

What? I thought Maps was the last book in the Bible, after the book of 
Concordance!

From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:17:51 -0700 (PDT)

Twisting the facts to mislead.
Do you accept your maps as part of the bible until 2005? LOL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.

Jd

-Original Message-
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:16:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

.AOLPlainTextBody {margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, 
Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px; color: #000; background-color: 
#fff; }.AOLPlainTextBody pre {font-size: 9pt;}.AOLInlineAttachment {
margin: 10px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader {border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB;   
 background: #F9F9F9;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {font: 11px Tahoma;  
  font-weight: bold;color: #66;background: #E9EAEB; 
padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel {font: 11px 
Tahoma; font-weight: bold;color: #66;padding: 1px 10px 1px 
9px;}.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {font: 11px Tahoma; color: 
#33;}The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish scriptures JD - are 
you saying that the Bereans may have been

checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read them?

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find 
this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that 
the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's. 
  The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ 
and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.

Jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 .AOLPlainTextBody {
FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, 
Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: 
#fff}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 .AOLPlainTextBody 
PRE {FONT-SIZE: 9pt}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
.AOLInlineAttachment {MARGIN: 
10px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
.AOLAttachmentHeader {BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e9eaeb 2px 
solid}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; 
BACKGROUND: #e9eaeb; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; COLOR: 
#66; PADDING-TOP: 
3px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 .AOLAttachmentHeader 
.FieldLabel {PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 9px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 
1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; COLOR: #66; PADDING-TOP: 
1px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475
 .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {FONT: 11px Tahoma; COLOR: 
#33}What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's 
teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs 
following the ascension.  Could we be

missing something here JD?

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation? 
  There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, 
certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLPlainTextBody {
FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, 
Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: 
#fff}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLPlainTextBody PRE {  
  FONT-SIZE: 9pt}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLInlineAttachment {   
 MARGIN: 10px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLAttachmentHeader {   
 BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e9eaeb 2px 
solid}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLAttachmentHeader 
.Title {PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; BACKGROUND: #e9eaeb; 
PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; COLOR: #66; PADDING-TOP:
 3px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-4329-b5af-882073221475 
#AOLMsgPart_2_9275316b-9e1e-42ac-b395-a647a7c02be0 .AOLAttachmentHeader 
.FieldLabel {PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 9px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 
1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; COLOR: #66; PADDING-TOP: 
1px}#AOLMsgPart_2_92a4aab2-2c23-43

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-06 Thread Dave Hansen





Street
preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy

DAVEH:  Then why do some feel the need to wave underwear?

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  
  DaveH, There are TT'ers who get
criticized for quoting what the Bible says by those who don't quote
what it says, but replacewhat it says with their own ideas of what they
think it should say--that's why they don't quote and don't like those
who quote.  Street preachers just quote what it says.  Izzy
  
  
  
  
  The
Bible speaks for itself.
  
DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so
many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The
Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers
feel the need to proclaim it from the street?
  


-- 
~~~
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 vs DaveH

Matthew Mark, Luke, bel & the Dragon?
only in the Catholic counterfiets!Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Do you know the history of the apocrypha JD?  I have a copy and in the flyleaf it says they were written well
after the close of the Old Testament during times of national unrest and that the spirit of the books reflect the
Hebrew ppl's response to the conflict and tensions of this period of time - with which I would concur.  OK for a
history buff but definitely not scripture.  jt
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:22:27 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.  Jd  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish scriptures JD - are you saying that the Bereans may have been
checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read them?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



 
 
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   
 
Jd
 From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
missing something here JD?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 

From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
 
 
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-06 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH:  I find that interesting, Lance.    May I ask how high (that may
be a poor way of describing it) is your faith?  IOW, on a scale of 1 to
10, where 10 is an absolute abiding faith in Jesus, and 5 is a mediocre
faith, and 1 is a bare shadow of a faithwhere do you feel you fit
on that scale?   AndIf you would rather not answer such a personal
question, please do not feel compelled to respond to this post. 
Orif you feel like responding, but don't want to risk the possible
mocking or vicious attack of other TTerspost it off-Forum.

    Perhaps I did not properly consider your original question.  I
don't consider my faith to be placed in JS, but rather in Jesus.   So,
if somebody chooses to attack JS for whatever reason,  I'm not too
bothered.  To me it would be like they are attacking Moses, or Abraham
or Paul.  I hadn't thought about it before, but perhaps that explains
why I don't get in a huff when some detractors say bad things about JS
on TT.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  Speaking for myself...maybe.A not
very good movie was made (look! he's at it again..does this guy do
nothing but watch movies?) entitled 'The Body'; the premise of which
was...wait for it...the discovery of the bones of Jesus..Well, there
you go
   
  This would be comparable to
discovering a document in the handwriting of JS saying...hey..I was
just funnin' y'all!!
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
    
Sent:
June 06, 2005 10:37
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


DAVEH:   Lance, from a subjective standpoint...Do you believe Jesus
is the Christ?  If so, could anything be said to move you from that
truth as you perceive it?  (I also wonder the same about other TTer's
feelings about thishoping to hear some responses.)

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  If I read you correctly then,
absolutely nothing could be said ever to move you from your 'subjective
truth'. I thought as much. 
  
DAVEH:  If I'm following you correctly on this Lance, the answer would
be yes to both questions.  (But I have not given it any deep thought,
as I'm a bit short on time this morning.)

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  Blaine says that 'God gives direction to all liberally
who ask in faith'. I asked you/DH whether or not the 'subjective'
bottom line was James 1. Are you herein simply offering a resounding
'yes' to that query? Would this invariably be your fallback position?

  

  


-- 
~~~
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 vs DaveH

Twisting the facts to mislead.
Do you accept your maps as part of the bible until 2005? LOL[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.
 
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:16:35 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish scriptures JD - are you saying that the Bereans may have been
checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read them?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



 
 
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   
 
Jd
 From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
missing something here JD?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 

From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
 
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

JD reaches back into his dusty old shelf of misinformation.
The Apocrypha was part of the corrupt mss 
The apocrypha was not part of the 1611 it was printed as a tool like the maps we have in our bibles, not interspesed as part of the text as in the Oldest & best manuscripts
The apocryphal books were not in the Jewish OT either only in the RC bibles.
The minister of questions chooses to mislead.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   
 
Jd
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:10:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
missing something here JD?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 

From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Was there no scripture in the first century? The poor Jews without God's word, hah?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. 
 
Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:17:29 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 

From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Yes how about it Lance?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, CPL, how 'bout answering me?.- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: June 06, 2005 13:59Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH> Blaine, I did not make that comment. It is from Lance. While most of use> place our OWN name before a statement we make, Lance places the name ofthe> person he is addresseing before his comment. I guess that is the way it is> done in Canada :-)>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH> >Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:32:59 EDT> >> >> >Interesting comment, CPL. :>)> >Blaine> >> >In a message dated
 6/6/2005 11:06:26 AM Mountain Standard Time,> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:> >> >CPL:You actually expect Blaine to take this 'foolishness' seriously?> >> >> >- Original Message -> >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >To: > >Sent: June 06, 2005 12:56> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH> >> >> > > Blaine, in your usual style, you have not answered my questions, yet> >expect> > > me to answer yours. Let me list them out for you...after you answer> >them,> > > then list yours out and I will take a stab at answering them:> > >> > > 1. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburnfeelings> > > mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom?> > >> > > 2. Do you have any
 biblical references that this burning feeling isa> >valid> > > witness?> > >> > > 3. Could it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked byyour> > > resident demon?> > >> > > 4. Have you ever seen the Sheikinah yourself?> > >> > > Perry> > >> >> >> >>>> --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.>--"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 vs DaveH

Sort of like the LDS owned News creating the story SP's call brides whores & break up wedding parties
AND
The Brian david Mitchell AKA Immanuel The Mormon who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart (around 14 years old) because "god" told him to take her as a plural wife. The LDS owned news called him ( Ex LDS Missionary, Ex temple worker) a Street Preacher. LOL
"No proof, no nothing, just the words"
And Blaine swallowed because he wanted to.Just shows the gullibility of human-kind & Blaine

I see you have not read Charlotte's Web. It is about a spider that spun webs with English words incorporated, which in turn were assumed by Humans to refer to the pig who lived in the sty beneath the webs. These descriptive adjectives were then assumed to be the pig's character traits. No proof, no nothing, just the words, appearing in print form, were enough to convince the masses that the pig was super-normal. He became celebrated, because Charlotte the spider said he was such--IN PRINT. Just a spoof on the gullibility of human-kind.
Blaine
In a message dated 6/6/2005 11:02:16 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you so gullible that YOU believe everything that is in print? Like the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the D&C.E. B. White, the author of Charlotte's Web, was born in 1899. How could the story be a basis for what E. B. Stennhouse wrote in 1875???Perry

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Thats right he just copied whole sections verbatim, of the KJV Bible in Elizabetan English and ascribed it to a bunch of Jews[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 6/6/2005 10:39:50 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy

Blaine: I have never seen that part, since it does not even exist.  The passage you're probably referring to is a warning about adding to or subtracting from what John himself  wrote under inspiration from Heaven.  The word "BIBLE" is not mentioned.  Neither is it referred to, since the Bible per se did not even exist at that time.   JS did not change anything in the Book of Rev. in writing the BoM or the D&C., or any other book.
		Discover Yahoo! 
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

"If they speak not according to this word it is because there is NO LIGHT in them"Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


No you draw the line when something is written that conflicts with what has previously been written because God is not doubleminded, nor does He contradict Himself.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:18:43 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Yeah, but what about all that has been written since?  Where do you draw the line, when no more can be written?  Blaine
 
In a message dated 6/6/2005 10:45:50 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I say that God is ONE and His Word is ONE.  
Jesus Christ God's Word is the same "Yesterday, Today, and Forever"
He is revealed in the Law and the Prophets and He has yet to supercede any of it - not the least jot or tittle
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:32:16 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


 
Blaine:  ISAIAH 8:20 is OT and refers to the Law of Moses only. There have been a lot of words written since the law was given to Moses.   All since Christ supercedes that law.  How do you account for all that?

 
 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Did you formulate any answers yet Lance?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CPL:You actually expect Blaine to take this 'foolishness' seriously?- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: June 06, 2005 12:56Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH> Blaine, in your usual style, you have not answered my questions, yetexpect> me to answer yours. Let me list them out for you...after you answer them,> then list yours out and I will take a stab at answering them:>> 1. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburn feelings> mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom?>> 2. Do you have any biblical references that this burning feeling is avalid> witness?>> 3. Could it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by your> resident
 demon?>> 4. Have you ever seen the Sheikinah yourself?>> Perry>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Perry, how can you speak with any authority about what I feel or whatother> >LDS feel, subjectivity being what it is? You take a heavy position,> >presuming to speak for others. All else aside, however, how do youaccount> > for JS's> >fire of the first vision that did not consume being so similar to the> >burning> >bush of Moses that burned yet was not consumed? And how do you account> >for> >that same fire being present at the Kirtland Temple's dedication?> >Hundreds> >witnessed it. BTW, you asked once, "How do you know I have never beenin> >a> >Mormon temple?" Would you please explain that question? Are you aformer> >Mormon?> >> >In a message dated 6/6/2005
 10:36:57 AM Mountain Standard Time,> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:> >> >> >Whoa, Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburn> >feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do youhave> >any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid witness?> >Could> >it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by your resident> >demon?> >> >Have you ever seen the Sheikinah yourself? According to E B Stennhouse,> >the editor of the Deseret news for some 25 years, in his 1875 book> >entitled> >"The Rocky Mountain Saints", he comments regarding the purportedShekinah> >in> >the Kirtland temple, paraphrasing, that the appearance of the spirit was> >more due to the imbibing of the spirit than the presence of the spirit.> >> >Perry>
 >> >> >>>> --> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.org>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"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 vs DaveH

2005-06-06 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH:   Can you blame them?  Seems like it may be a defensive
technique.  If they quote a passage, they may fear being criticized as
proof-texting.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  
  DaveH, regarding your previous question,
please take note of this technique of the Bible quote haters:  Instead
of specifically quoting a particular statement to explain their views
they throw an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in there if you just
can see it--find it for yourself!"  Thus they think they are justified
for using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not being specific
(because it really isn't "in there"!).  Izzy
  
  
  
  
  The Bible does NOT speak for itself.
On this (see my formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is it
that even among the 'biblicists' who are mature there exists such
minimal agreement? This ain't tennis or ping pong folks, this is the
God of the Cosmos! Throwing out bible verses which simply elucidate
YOUR view (not HIS) leaves people confused. That's why I referenced 2
Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter). 
  Because men love darkness so much that
they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be made
manifest.
 
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  The Bible speaks for itself.
  
DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so
many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The
Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers
feel the need to proclaim it from the street?
  
ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  

The Bible speaks for itself.  According
to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God of the
Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy
  
  

  


-- 
~~~
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 vs DaveH




Actually I still don't know what you said JD because no 
New Testament writer that I am aware of
quotes from the apocrypha at all.  What is your 
point?  Since you don't like being misunderstood I would
think you'd be glad to tell me.  jt
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:22:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
  Yes I do.   You apparently missed my point. 
   
   From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  Do you know the history of the apocrypha JD?  I 
  have a copy and in the flyleaf it says they were written well
  after the close of the Old Testament during times of 
  national unrest and that the spirit of the books reflect the
  Hebrew ppl's response to the conflict and tensions of 
  this period of time - with which I would concur.  OK for a
  history buff but definitely not scripture.  
  jt
   
  On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:22:27 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.  
Jd  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish 
scriptures JD - are you saying that the Bereans may have been
checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you 
read them?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
   
  http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   
  You may find this interesting.   As 
  far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was 
  a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The 
  so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  
  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, 
  themselves.   
   
  Jd
   From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 
  checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite 
  epistle
  James is said to have been written by the Lord's 
  brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
  missing something here JD?
   
  On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  


When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or 
after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" 
in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be 
adding to what God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it 
is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of 
  Revelations. 
  
From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, 
Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract 
from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? 
  Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-06 Thread knpraise


 
Yes I do.   You apparently missed my point. 
 
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:34:27 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



Do you know the history of the apocrypha JD?  I have a copy and in the flyleaf it says they were written well
after the close of the Old Testament during times of national unrest and that the spirit of the books reflect the
Hebrew ppl's response to the conflict and tensions of this period of time - with which I would concur.  OK for a
history buff but definitely not scripture.  jt
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:22:27 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.  Jd  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish scriptures JD - are you saying that the Bereans may have been
checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read them?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



 
 
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   
 
Jd
 From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
missing something here JD?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 

From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

What I typed was intentional. I have heard the word used as an intentional 
mispronunciation of bosom since I was a kid. Lance indicated to me that to 
some it may mean something a little different. I have heard it used in that 
sense before, but by no means thought that it meant that exclusively. To 
those to whom it means something more than just a hilarious way to say 
bosom, I apologize. To those who took it in the spirit in which I used it, 
LAUGH IT UP.

My folks mispronounced several words regulary as I was growingup. Some were 
intentional to get a laugh, some were part of their southern dialect. My 
schoolmates were often quite entertained by my occasional mispronunciations, 
whether intentional or not!

What do you expect from a clown?

Perry

From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT)

ROTFL!
Burning in the BAZOOM?
Did you make that up or a typo "Bosom"

Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Whoa, Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburn
feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do you have
any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid witness? Could
it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by your resident
demon?

Have you ever seen the Sheikinah yourself? According to E B Stennhouse,
the editor of the Deseret news for some 25 years, in his 1875 book entitled
"The Rocky Mountain Saints", he comments regarding the purported Shekinah 
in

the Kirtland temple, paraphrasing, that the appearance of the spirit was
more due to the imbibing of the spirit than the presence of the spirit.

Perry

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
>Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:17:53 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 6/6/2005 10:08:50 AM Mountain Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>a sense of false security
>Good point Blaine.
>What security do you have?
>
>
>Blaine: The witness of the spirit. The Shekinah, the fiery presence of
>the
>Lord in his appearance to JS and later, at the dedication of the
>Kirtland
>(Ohio) Temple. I feel this fire as often as I am humble and seek the
>Lord's
>will, not my own. What security do you have, Kevin? Hmmm?

--
"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 vs DaveH





From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But the Mormon teaching Manuals say the Prophet is the ONLY man allowed to 
add or subtract.


To/from his harem?




ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:You are wrong again, Blaine.  
Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you 
miss that part? Izzy



-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:06 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



I
Blaine:  Aren't you converted to Mormonism by now Izzy?  :>)  I'm shocked 
you don't know the answer.  It is BOTH.  Since they are the same 
individuals!  I do, however understand why you might think otherwise.  
Anyone subjected to the watered-down doctrines of traditional Christianity 
would tend, I would think, to uphold these false niceties, even in the face 
of strong evidence to the contrary.  Satan has a way of lulling the unwary 
into a sense of false security, engendered by his presentation of a few 
superficial truths with his fundamental falsehoods.  This pairing is as old 
as the Garden of Eden, when Satan told Eve she would not surely die, AND 
that she would gain wisdom, the latter being the truth, and the former a 
lie.


n a message dated 6/6/2005 9:23:07 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Bible speaks for itself.  According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  
Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? 
Izzy






-
Discover Yahoo!
 Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!



--
"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 vs DaveH




Do you know the history of the apocrypha JD?  I 
have a copy and in the flyleaf it says they were written well
after the close of the Old Testament during times of 
national unrest and that the spirit of the books reflect the
Hebrew ppl's response to the conflict and tensions of 
this period of time - with which I would concur.  OK for a
history buff but definitely not scripture.  
jt
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:22:27 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.  
  Jd  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish 
  scriptures JD - are you saying that the Bereans may have been
  checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read 
  them?
   
  On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


 
 
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   
You may find this interesting.   As 
far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a 
part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The 
so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  
Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, 
themselves.   
 
Jd
 From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 
checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite 
epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's 
brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
missing something here JD?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after 
  the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first 
  century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what 
  God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  

  Myth - It is finished already
  And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is 
  also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
   
  On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of 
Revelations. 

  From: ShieldsFamily 
  You are wrong again, Blaine.  
  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the 
  Bible.  Did you miss that part? 
  Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Blaine: If they look and act the same, I must be justified in assuming they are the same.
You must be a RIOT at the TWINS Birthday party!
READ the Bible not your funny Ensign magazines!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Blaine: If they look and act the same, I must be justified in assuming they are the same. The Gospel of JC is for the unlearned and the simple, as well as for the learned and the sophisticated, so simple assumptions are justified. BUT--How do you know for certain your conclusions, e.g., The God of the Bible was not once a man and is not from the planet Kolob, did not have a son named Satan (or Lucifer), are not just the result of your long-time addiction to the niceties of the secterian world, which is rampant with people whose ears itch for the easy grace and pardon-my-sin-but-I-will-be-saved-anyway gospel?
In a message dated 6/6/2005 10:24:49 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's funny. The God of the Bible was not once a man and is not from the planet Kolob, did not have a son named Satan (or Lucifer). Get serious Blaine. I know you have been told they are the same, and that you have to ignore the facts to maintain that belief, but the rest of us know better.Do you also think the David Miller from Hollywood Florida, is the same David Miller as the one from Hollywood CA. Same name, maybe same hair color, and maybe they both drive an SUV...by mormon standards maybe they are the same! (Apologies to DM).

__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

But the Mormon teaching Manuals say the Prophet is the ONLY man allowed to add or subtract.ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH


I
Blaine:  Aren't you converted to Mormonism by now Izzy?  :>)  I'm shocked you don't know the answer.  It is BOTH.  Since they are the same individuals!  I do, however understand why you might think otherwise.  Anyone subjected to the watered-down doctrines of traditional Christianity would tend, I would think, to uphold these false niceties, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.  Satan has a way of lulling the unwary into a sense of false security, engendered by his presentation of a few superficial truths with his fundamental falsehoods.  This pairing is as old as the Garden of Eden, when Satan told Eve she would not surely die, AND that she would gain wisdom, the latter being the truth, and the former a lie.
 
n a message dated 6/6/2005 9:23:07 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Bible speaks for itself.  According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy

 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

ROTFL!
Burning in the BAZOOM?
Did you make that up or a typo "Bosom"Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whoa, Blaine. Is your "witness of the spirit" that subjective heartburn feelings mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in the bazoom? Do you have any biblical references that this burning feeling is a valid witness? Could it instead possibly be the fires of hell being stoked by your resident demon?Have you ever seen the Sheikinah yourself? According to E B Stennhouse, the editor of the Deseret news for some 25 years, in his 1875 book entitled "The Rocky Mountain Saints", he comments regarding the purported Shekinah in the Kirtland temple, paraphrasing, that the appearance of the spirit was more due to the imbibing of the spirit than the presence of the spirit.Perry>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs
 DaveH>Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:17:53 EDT>>>In a message dated 6/6/2005 10:08:50 AM Mountain Standard Time,>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:>>a sense of false security>Good point Blaine.>What security do you have?>>>Blaine: The witness of the spirit. The Shekinah, the fiery presence of >the>Lord in his appearance to JS and later, at the dedication of the >Kirtland>(Ohio) Temple. I feel this fire as often as I am humble and seek the >Lord's>will, not my own. What security do you have, Kevin? Hmmm?--"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 vs DaveH

Blaine says All since Christ supercedes that law.  How do you account for all that?
 
How do I account for it? You just made it up!
 
Blaine says OT and refers to the Law of Moses only
So you do not accept the OT? It is not applicable for today?
This is contrary to the word of God ALL scripture not just NT
2 TIM 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
 
Baaline read it again it says "LAW" & "Testimony"
IS 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Jesus  bore witness & spoke that TESTIMONY
JN 3:31- He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God
Paul DECLARED the TESTIMONY
1 Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
John wrote of that TESTIMONY
RV 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
 
Christ does not "supercede" the law
And  if he did why do you still keep it?
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect
MT 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 
Blaine:  ISAIAH 8:20 is OT and refers to the Law of Moses only. There have been a lot of words written since the law was given to Moses.   All since Christ supercedes that law.  How do you account for all that?
 
In a message dated 6/6/2005 10:17:55 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

ISAIAH 8:20 - BofM does not pass the smell test
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:05:50 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I
Blaine:  Aren't you converted to Mormonism by now Izzy?  :>)  I'm shocked you don't know the answer.  It is BOTH.  Since they are the same individuals!  I do, however understand why you might think otherwise.  Anyone subjected to the watered-down doctrines of traditional Christianity would tend, I would think, to uphold these false niceties, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.  Satan has a way of lulling the unwary into a sense of false security, engendered by his presentation of a few superficial truths with his fundamental falsehoods.  This pairing is as old as the Garden of Eden, when Satan told Eve she would not surely die, AND that she would gain wisdom, the latter being the truth, and the former a lie.

 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-06 Thread knpraise


What I said is plainly stated. Make of it what you will.
 
 
Jd  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:16:35 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish scriptures JD - are you saying that the Bereans may have been
checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read them?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



 
 
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   
 
Jd
 From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]



What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
missing something here JD?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 

From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH




The "apocrypha" were not part of the Jewish scriptures 
JD - are you saying that the Bereans may have been
checking out Paul's teaching by them? - have you read 
them?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:09:01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
   
  http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   
  You may find this interesting.   As far 
  as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part 
  of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called 
  "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or 
  the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   
  
   
  Jd
   From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 
  checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite 
epistle
  James is said to have been written by the Lord's 
  brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
  missing something here JD?
   
  On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after 
the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first 
century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what 
God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is 
also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of 
  Revelations. 
  
From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  
Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  
Did you miss that part? 
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

2005-06-06 Thread knpraise


 
 
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/   You may find this interesting.   As far as "adding" to the bible  -- did you know that the Apocrapha was a part of nearly all Bibles until the mid to late 1800's.   The so-called "Prostestant bible" is a little over 120 yers old.  Christ and or the New Testament writers quoted from most of them, themselves.   
 
Jd
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:10:53 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH



What were the more noble Bereans of Acts 17:11 checking Paul's teaching against?  Also your favorite epistle
James is said to have been written by the Lord's brother only 15yrs following the ascension.  Could we be
missing something here JD?
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:03:19 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



When did the Bible come into existence  --  before or after the Revelation?   There was no book called the "Bible" in first century times.   But, certainly, we should not be adding to what God has said. Jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Myth - It is finished already
And this warning is not only in Revelation, it is also in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs.
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:01:12 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

In 'Prophecy: The Uprising' they go on to FINISH the book of Revelations. 

From: ShieldsFamily 
You are wrong again, Blaine.  Revelations says that no one is to add or subtract from the Bible.  Did you miss that part? Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

LOL sounds like 3 card Monty or PrestO ChangeO
ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


DaveH, regarding your previous question, please take note of this technique of the Bible quote haters:  Instead of specifically quoting a particular statement to explain their views they throw an entire chapter at you and say, "It's in there if you just can see it--find it for yourself!"  Thus they think they are justified for using the Bible, but have blurred the issues by not being specific (because it really isn't "in there"!).  Izzy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 3:27 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

The Bible does NOT speak for itself. On this (see my formula once again) we wholeheartedly agree. Why is it that even among the 'biblicists' who are mature there exists such minimal agreement? This ain't tennis or ping pong folks, this is the God of the Cosmos! Throwing out bible verses which simply elucidate YOUR view (not HIS) leaves people confused. That's why I referenced 2 Tim 3 (KJV whole chapter). 

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: June 06, 2005 05:07
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Because men love darkness so much that they will not come to the light so that their deeds may be made
manifest.
 
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:49:00 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

The Bible speaks for itself.DAVEH:    Are you sure about that, Izzy???  If so, why are there so many TTers wanting to speak in its behalf?   Hmm...If the The Bible speaks for itself, then why do Street Preachers feel the need to proclaim it from the street?ShieldsFamily wrote: 


The Bible speaks for itself.  According to JSmith the Bible is not enough.  Who will you serve, the God of the Bible or the God of the Book of Mormon? Izzy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:12 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveHDAVEH:   The problem as I see it, who is the arbiter of truth on TT, Izzy.  Is there anybody here you would say expounds nothing but truth?ShieldsFamily wrote: 


Only to condemn those who heard the truth but did not heed it. Iz
DAVEH:    Do you suppose enduring to the end of TT would qualify!   ;-) ShieldsFamily wrote: 









No.  You must endure to the end in Christ.  Enduring to the end in JSmith doesnt cut it.  Sorry. Iz




 
DAVEH:  I appreciate your concern for my eternal welfare, Izzy.  Would it be OK with you if I first endure to the end before getting saved, as the Savior suggested?ShieldsFamily wrote: 
I vote for (4) Get saved and talk about the REAL Jesus! J Izzy-- 
~~~
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.
 
		Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

Sorry, Lance, I took your question to be rhetorical since 'foolishness' was 
in quotes. So, here is your answer. I consider questions 1, 2, and 4 to be 
serious questions that Blaine can answer, and questions for which I expected 
(or at least hoped for) an answer. Question 3 I consider to be an extremely 
serious question, which I expected Blaine to ignore.

As far as  asking him to answer my questions before I answer his, he is 
generally good at answering questions when they come one or two at a time, 
but if there are more than a couple he tends to ignore the questions, then 
fires back his own. I am not going to play that way. I want some semblance 
of a discussion, so I am going to force that issue.

Perry

From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:02:18 -0400

Now, CPL, how 'bout answering me?

.
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: June 06, 2005 13:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH

> Blaine, I did not make that comment. It is from Lance. While most of use
> place our OWN name before a statement we make, Lance places the name of
the
> person he is addresseing before his comment. I guess that is the way it 
is

> done in Canada :-)
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:32:59 EDT
> >
> >
> >Interesting comment, CPL.  :>)
> >Blaine
> >
> >In a message dated 6/6/2005 11:06:26 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >CPL:You  actually expect Blaine to take this 'foolishness' seriously?
> >
> >
> >-  Original Message -
> >From: "Charles Perry Locke"  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To:  
> >Sent: June 06, 2005 12:56
> >Subject:  Re: [TruthTalk] Perry vs DaveH
> >
> >
> > > Blaine, in your usual style,  you have not answered my questions, 
yet

> >expect
> > > me to answer yours.  Let me list them out for you...after you answer
> >them,
> > > then list yours  out and I will take a stab at answering them:
> > >
> > > 1. Is your  "witness of the spirit" that  subjective heartburn
feelings
> > >  mormons say they get? AKA, the burning in  the bazoom?
> > >
> > > 2.  Do you have any biblical references that this burning feeling  
is

a
> >valid
> > > witness?
> > >
> > > 3. Could it instead possibly be  the fires of hell being  stoked by
your
> > > resident  demon?
> > >
> > > 4. Have you ever seen the  Sheikinah  yourself?
> > >
> > > 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.
>

--
"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 vs DaveH