Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
In a message dated 1/15/2005 8:55:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is NOT, read NOT intended as an insult JD Tradition and God's Word do not mix and they do not blend they are like oil and water. I am aware that this is not a politically correct thing to say but no insult is intended. jht On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:42:30 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Intentions have nothing to do with it. That is the part some on this forum do not understand. When one contrasts supposed "traditions" to his/her's study of God's Word, we see both arrogance and put down in one single breath. If we had said, " you see the Word differently than." If it is ok for one to talk this way, it should be ok for one to point out the inherent problem. Time will tell. In the end, policing the forum will not work. The only true solution is the Lordship of Christ in the heart of each participant. The lawless will figure out a way to circumvent the rule of law. They have in the past. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:42 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Izzy, I am not a part of this discussion, but I AM INSULTED BY IT. Maybe John was also. Jeff - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:42 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Thats your choice. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:40 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation Izzy, I am not a part of this discussion, but I AM INSULTED BY IT. Maybe John was also. Jeff - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:42 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
When one thinks I focus on Tradition instead of Scripture, I guess I should just laugh it off and say, "Hahahaha, great joke!" I'm going it ignore the hits when they come my way. After all, Messiah saidI amto turn the other cheek and He was NOT referring to actual physical strikes. He's speaking specifically about what's written in green below and my reaction to it. I'm not to come back and hit her with a verbal shot. It's me who needs to change. -- slade -Original Message-From:ShieldsFamilySent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 10.37Subject:[TruthTalk] Private Interpretation jt -- Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) JD --Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). IZZY -- JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
In a message dated 1/16/2005 7:38:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. Izzy It is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who made the statement. LOL Jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
It is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who made the statement. LOL Jd And you appointed yourself to notify Slade that he was insulted. Good job, JD. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
You got the order wrong, but nice try blaming JD for my sin. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 12.59To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation It is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who made the statement. LOLJd And you appointed yourself to notify Slade that he was insulted. Good job, JD. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
What is the Talmud Slade? Did you say yesterday that you had a paper to write on the Talmud? jt On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:24:16 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When one thinks I focus on Tradition instead of Scripture, I guess I should just laugh it off and say, "Hahahaha, great joke!" I'm going it ignore the hits when they come my way. After all, Messiah saidI amto turn the other cheek and He was NOT referring to actual physical strikes. He's speaking specifically about what's written in green below and my reaction to it. I'm not to come back and hit her with a verbal shot. It's me who needs to change. -- slade jt -- Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) JD --Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). IZZY -- JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
You are "stirring the pot" here John, that just didn't need to be said.. On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:26:17 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/16/2005 7:38:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part)Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. IzzyIt is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who made the statement. LOLJd
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation *REPRIMAND*
The *naner-naner* needs to stop. As I stated in a previous email... I hear the tone behind the words better than David does. David sees the words used far better than I. When I tried to speak with others about the tone (even the implied tone), I got shot down. EVERY TIME. Simply stated, it's clear that JD "feels" what I felt in JudyT's post. From my understanding, JD is attempting to show JudyT wherethe tone can be perceived as mean or insulting. As it now stands, JD is not viewed as "stirring the pot" unless overturned by the Owner of the forum. --slade -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 14.27Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation You are "stirring the pot" here John, that just didn't need to be said.. On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:26:17 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part)Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. IzzyIt is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who made the statement. LOLJd
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Slade wrote: You and I hardly agree. Why is that? One post in about 200 I can agree with. Judy wrote: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) John wrote: Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). Judy wrote: This is NOT, read NOT intended as an insult JD Tradition and God's Word do not mix and they do not blend they are like oil and water. I am aware that this is not a politically correct thing to say but no insult is intended. John wrote: Intentions have nothing to do with it. That is the part some on this forum do not understand.When one contrasts supposed traditions to his/her's study of God's Word, we see both arrogance and put down in one single breath. Intentions do have SOMETHING to do with it, but not everything. The thing that is starting to go wrong here is that Judy is dealing with something personal... why Slade and her do not agree. Slade asked a personal question, and Judy answered it. She had no intention of insulting Slade. She was trying to answer his question. Her answer is quite logical considering how Slade admits to studying tradition and the importance of tradition, something that Judy does not value quite so much. Her answer appears factual, and the only reason why anybody would be offended by it as far as I can tell is if they think something is wrong with being focused on tradition right now. Please notice the right now part of her answer, because it seems to show how Judy sees this is perhaps a temporary thing in Slades studies. This gets into one of the gray areas that I have mentioned. In my opinion, it does not cross over into an ad hominem attack because the answer was solicited by Slade to begin with. However, it does get close, which is why you said, possibly an insult. Let's just leave this whole thread be. There are other things to discuss. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation *Reprimand*
Ok, Judy. You have gone too far. Your post said, "YOU ARE STIRRING THE POT." That's a personal accusation. Izzy, you too have gone too far. You said, "why must youkeep stirring the pot of strife." Both of you might be right, but the list does not exist for this purpose. Solet's just drop it. Judy, you can talk about why focusing on tradition might cause one to disagree with someone who is focused on God's Word, but skip the commentary on how another list memberisstirring the pot. David Miller Moderator. p.s. No public replies to this post please. Subject line has *Reprimand* in it. Read and obey. Let's move on. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation You are "stirring the pot" here John, that just didn't need to be said.. On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:26:17 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/16/2005 7:38:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part)Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. IzzyIt is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who made the statement. LOLJd
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation *Reprimand*
Its dropped already-! Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:28 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation *Reprimand* Ok, Judy. You have gone too far. Your post said, YOU ARE STIRRING THE POT. That's a personal accusation. Izzy, you too have gone too far. You said, why must youkeep stirring the pot of strife. Both of you might be right, but the list does not exist for this purpose. Solet's just drop it. Judy, you can talk about why focusing on tradition might cause one to disagree with someone who is focused on God's Word, but skip the commentary on how another list memberisstirring the pot. David Miller Moderator. p.s. No public replies to this post please. Subject line has *Reprimand* in it. Read and obey. Let's move on. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation You are stirring the pot here John, that just didn't need to be said.. On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:26:17 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/16/2005 7:38:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part). JD, why must you keep stirring the pot of strife (as if there isnt enough already.) Let Slade determine for himself if he is insulted. Izzy It is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who made the statement. LOL Jd
[TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
If you don't mind, I'll do the David Miller thing and start a thread based upon someone else's writing Judy Taylor, who really should have been resting her weary bones in bed,said the following on Friday, 14 January, 2005 01.53 ...you have your own private interpretation... What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?" -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
If you will send me my quote in the balance and context I wrote it in Slade- I will be glad to oblige. judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you don't mind, I'll do the David Miller thing and start a thread based upon someone else's writing Judy Taylor, who really should have been resting her weary bones in bed,said the following on Friday, 14 January, 2005 01.53 ...you have your own private interpretation... What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?" -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Your post (that you could have remembered writingeasier than me retrieving it)is attached to this email. So we don't begin with a rabbit trail,What is your definition of Private Interpretation. From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 09.52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private InterpretationIf you will send me my quote in the balance and context I wrote it in Slade- I will be glad to oblige. judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?" ---BeginMessage--- Then John you have your own private interpretation so that what God says about it makes no difference to you... At least this is the way it appears to me. His word clearly says SIN IS LAWLESSNESS - and it also says that no prophecy of scripture is for private interpretation. 1 John 3:4 is just as inspired as the rest. judyt On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:36:10 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/13/2005 10:29:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jd: Judy, you really do not have a clue as to "the practice of lawlessness." Your use of the phrase "This is sin" forces this conclusion. jt: Just agreeing with God's Word John ie: "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness and sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). Like I said, Not a clue.John ---End Message---
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
The original post is an object lesson in"private interpretation" God's Word clearly and plainly says: "SIN IS LAWLESSNESS" (1 John 3:4) John says it's not and tells me that I don't have a clue as to the practice of lawlessness so here is a contradiction. I choose to believeGod's Word and IMOJohn has his own private interpretation of both sin and lawlessness. jht On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:46:25 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your post (that you could have remembered writingeasier than me retrieving it)is attached to this email. So we don't begin with a rabbit trail,What is your definition of Private Interpretation. From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 09.52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private InterpretationIf you will send me my quote in the balance and context I wrote it in Slade- I will be glad to oblige. judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?"
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Are you saying that you were not alluding to 2 Peter 1:20? If you were alluding to it, please define what you believe the passage refers to. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 12.16To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation The original post is an object lesson in"private interpretation" God's Word clearly and plainly says: "SIN IS LAWLESSNESS" (1 John 3:4) John says it's not and tells me that I don't have a clue as to the practice of lawlessness so here is a contradiction. I choose to believeGod's Word and IMOJohn has his own private interpretation of both sin and lawlessness. jht On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:46:25 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your post (that you could have remembered writingeasier than me retrieving it)is attached to this email. So we don't begin with a rabbit trail,What is your definition of Private Interpretation. From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 09.52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private InterpretationIf you will send me my quote in the balance and context I wrote it in Slade- I will be glad to oblige. judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?"
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Yes I did allude to 2 Peter 1:20 because my belief is that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" so this would include 1 John 3:4 On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:46:17 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you were not alluding to 2 Peter 1:20? If you were alluding to it, please define what you believe the passage refers to. -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor The original post is an object lesson in"private interpretation" God's Word clearly and plainly says: "SIN IS LAWLESSNESS" (1 John 3:4) John says it's not and tells me that I don't have a clue as to the practice of lawlessness so here is a contradiction. I choose to believeGod's Word and IMOJohn has his own private interpretation of both sin and lawlessness. jht On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:46:25 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your post (that you could have remembered writingeasier than me retrieving it)is attached to this email. So we don't begin with a rabbit trail,What is your definition of Private Interpretation. From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 09.52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private InterpretationIf you will send me my quote in the balance and context I wrote it in Slade- I will be glad to oblige. judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?"
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Great. How does one interpret privately and how does one do it correctly? -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 12.53To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation Yes I did allude to 2 Peter 1:20 because my belief is that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" so this would include 1 John 3:4 On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:46:17 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you were not alluding to 2 Peter 1:20? If you were alluding to it, please define what you believe the passage refers to. -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor The original post is an object lesson in"private interpretation" God's Word clearly and plainly says: "SIN IS LAWLESSNESS" (1 John 3:4) John says it's not and tells me that I don't have a clue as to the practice of lawlessness so here is a contradiction. I choose to believeGod's Word and IMOJohn has his own private interpretation of both sin and lawlessness. jht On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:46:25 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your post (that you could have remembered writingeasier than me retrieving it)is attached to this email. So we don't begin with a rabbit trail,What is your definition of Private Interpretation. From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 09.52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private InterpretationIf you will send me my quote in the balance and context I wrote it in Slade- I will be glad to oblige. judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?"
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Slade why do I have the feeling that I am being baited here and that you are not really interested in the subjects you are wanting me to clarify for you?? On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:12:41 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great. How does one interpret privately and how does one do it correctly? -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Yes I did allude to 2 Peter 1:20 because my belief is that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" so this would include 1 John 3:4 On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:46:17 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that you were not alluding to 2 Peter 1:20? If you were alluding to it, please define what you believe the passage refers to. -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor The original post is an object lesson in"private interpretation" God's Word clearly and plainly says: "SIN IS LAWLESSNESS" (1 John 3:4) John says it's not and tells me that I don't have a clue as to the practice of lawlessness so here is a contradiction. I choose to believeGod's Word and IMOJohn has his own private interpretation of both sin and lawlessness. jht On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:46:25 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your post (that you could have remembered writingeasier than me retrieving it)is attached to this email. So we don't begin with a rabbit trail,What is your definition of Private Interpretation. From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 09.52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private InterpretationIf you will send me my quote in the balance and context I wrote it in Slade- I will be glad to oblige. judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What, Judy,is your interpretation of "Private Interpretation?"
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
You and I hardly agree. Why is that? One post in about 200 I can agree with. Perhaps you're not curious. I am. This is a highly unusual phenomenon. How is it that I get along with Izzy (most of the time), yet she seems to be a lapdog to your doctrine? That, also, makes no sense to me. David supports you like an underwire --that makes sense to me. Are you being baited? Yes you are, but not for the reasons you suspect. Again, this shows the opposing viewpoints we carry. You mentioned "private interpretation" in a post,and it clicked in my miniscule brain that perhaps this is the secondary source of our [collective] problem on TruthTalk. -- slade The primary source of our [collective] problems, in case you are curious, is the sheer lack of love on this forum... (which thevassals of divisiveness do not know they are the ultimate culprits and all other sources are in direct response). -Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 13.57Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation Slade why do I have the feeling that I am being baited here and that you are not really interested in the subjects you are wanting me to clarify for you?? On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:12:41 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great. How does one interpret privately and how does one do it correctly? -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:52:06 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You and I hardly agree. Why is that? One post in about 200 I can agree with. jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Perhaps you're not curious. I am. This is a highly unusual phenomenon. How is it that I get along with Izzy (most of the time), yet she seems to be a lapdog to your doctrine? jt: Probably because Izzy loves you as she says she does but she is no lapdog to anything I would offer, Izzy thinks for herself. That, also, makes no sense to me. David supports you like an underwire --that makes sense to me. jt: Which brings me to something I am curious about. Why are you and some of the others so rough on DavidM? Has he offended you in some way? Even if you don't believe in present day prophecy right now can't you put it on the shelf and examine it later? Are you being baited? Yes you are, but not for the reasons you suspect. jt: Then why am I being baited? Again, this shows the opposing viewpoints we carry. You mentioned "private interpretation" in a post,and it clicked in my miniscule brain that perhaps this is the secondary source of our [collective] problem on TruthTalk. jt: Oh I have no doubt it is a source of our problem, with more than 144 different doctrines being taught out there it would be a miracle if none of them showed up here. Calvinism and dispensationalism have already arrived. The primary source of our [collective] problems, in case you are curious, is the sheer lack of love on this forum... (which thevassals of divisiveness do not know they are the ultimate culprits and all other sources are in direct response). jt: Slade we need to agree that our warfare is not against flesh and blood - the vassals of divisiveness are principalities, powers, and wicked spirits in the heavenlies... who do drain ppl and cause lack of love. From: Judy TaylorSlade why do I have the feeling that I am being baited here and that you are not really interested in the subjects you are wanting me to clarify for you?? On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:12:41 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great. How does one interpret privately and how does one do it correctly? -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
Thanks for answering my question. Now I understand what you mean by "private Interpretation." -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
-- slade The primary source of our [collective] problems, in case you are curious, is the sheer lack of love on this forum... (which thevassals of divisiveness do not know they are the ultimate culprits and all other sources are in direct response). Perhaps the Lord has sent us culprits and vassals of divisiveness to help the innocents out there learn to walk in the Spirit rather than in anger and bitterness. What a blessing we are!!! J Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part) Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part).
Re: [TruthTalk] Private Interpretation
This is NOT, read NOT intended as an insult JD Tradition and God's Word do not mix and they do not blend they are like oil and water. I am aware thatthis is not a politically correct thing to say butno insult isintended. jht On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:42:30 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word (just a guess on my part)Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part).
