Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
Out of the abundance that fills the heart the mouth speaks - from both sides. On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:55:45 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but you read Dakes. And I read Barth. I am no more "of Barth" than you are "of Dakes" so stop with the "you're out and I am in" games. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not of Barth and neither am I of Dakes jt On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:59:50 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Read Barth (instead of Dakes) From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
If you include yoourself in this statement, a hearty "amen" from the Smithmeister !! -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:54:25 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Read Barth (instead of Dakes) -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:17:21 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
but you read Dakes. And I read Barth. I am no more "of Barth" than you are "of Dakes" so stop with the "you're out and I am in" games. jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:25:35 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher I am not of Barth and neither am I of Dakes jt On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:59:50 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Read Barth (instead of Dakes) From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Read Barth (instead of Dakes) -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:17:21 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
I am not of Barth and neither am I of Dakes jt On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:59:50 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Read Barth (instead of Dakes) From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Read Barth (instead of Dakes) -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:17:21 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense)
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:28:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology] as a science, namely, the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly disowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10). So the late Barth did or did not believe theology is a science? There is no way I can answer that question without you misunderstanding. Sorry. besides, the point of the above had nothing to do with "science." Is this what he said all that to say? This is not written in English. When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth is all about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same. Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. Ppl can be conservative and well meaning and still be dead wrong. Thank you for your testimony on that. Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider theology as a "science" How is it possible for theology to be a science when observation is the key to science? So how does one observe God? Who said the rules of natural science are the rules of thgology? Not me. Not Barth. Just you. You are just arguing with yourself on this one, Judy. 1. freedom from contradiction The Bible is already free from contradiction with or without Barth Not the way you interpret it 2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter]. That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess Barth would have been unified with himself.] Huh? All I know is that you do not agree with any other person on TT -- none of do. 3. The willingness to accept request for verification. Who would he verify with? Anyone who has an ear for understanding. 4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible. What is impossible with God? You miss the point. If you do not have have respect for what is naturally impossible, you will never recognize a miracle when it happens. 5. Freedom from all prejudgments. 6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions]. Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic. [] are my additions. jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:56:57 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology] as a science, namely, the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly disowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10). So the late Barth did or did not believe theology is a science? There is no way I can answer that question without you misunderstanding. Sorry. besides, the point of the above had nothing to do with "science." Is this what he said all that to say? This is not written in English. When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth is all about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same. Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. Ppl can be conservative and well meaning and still be dead wrong. Thank you for your testimony on that. Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider theology as a "science" How is it possible for theology to be a science when observation is the key to science? So how does one observe God? Who said the rules of natural science are the rules of thgology? Not me. Not Barth. Just you. You are just arguing with yourself on this one, Judy. 1. freedom from contradiction The Bible is already free from contradiction with or without Barth Not the way you interpret it 2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter]. That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess Barth would have been unified with himself.] Huh? All I know is that you do not agree with any other person on TT -- none of do. 3. The willingness to accept request for verification. Who would he verify with? Anyone who has an ear for understanding. 4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible. What is impossible with God? You miss the point. If you do not have have respect for what is naturally impossible, you will never recognize a miracle when it happens. 5. Freedom from all prejudgments. 6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions]. Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic. [] are my additions. jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology] as a science, namely, the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly disowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10). So the late Barth did or did not believe theology is a science? Is this what he said all that to say? When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth is all about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same. Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Ppl can be conservative and well meaning and still be dead wrong. Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider theology as a "science" How is it possible for theology to be a science when observation is the key to science? So how does one observe God? 1. freedom from contradiction The Bible is already free from contradiction with or without Barth 2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter]. That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess Barth would have been unified with himself. 3. The willingness to accept request for verification. Who would he verify with? 4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible. What is impossible with God? 5. Freedom from all prejudgments. 6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions]. Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic. [] are my additions. jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
Thanks JD Pastor, BISHOP and NOW Master Teacher![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology] as a science, namely, the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly disowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10). When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth is all about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same. Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider theology as a "science" : 1. freedom from contradiction 2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter]. 3. The willingness to accept request for verification. 4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible. 5. Freedom from all prejudgments. 6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions]. Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic. [] are my additions. jd Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
"But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology] as a science, namely, the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly disowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10). When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth is all about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same. Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider theology as a "science" : 1. freedom from contradiction 2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter]. 3. The willingness to accept request for verification. 4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible. 5. Freedom from all prejudgments. 6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions]. Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic. [] are my additions. jd
