subject:"RE\: \[TruthTalk\] Good News\!"









It seems to me that the only parts
that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
4:30 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







Helps clarify between John the Dunker and
John the Sprinkler.











-- slade





-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005
21.33
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!

Slade Henson wrote: 



I wish I could tell you what PTillich's
thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from
this basic premise: it'smy understanding that Messiah and the Immerser
said, Repent! The Kingdom
 of God is at hand
and I think they meant it. It was there for the taking.











-- slade




Immerser. I like that
term. Your idea, or is that the original language term?
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-18 Thread Bill Taylor




I see the smilen face and assume you are joking. 
Tell me you are joking . . .

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:31 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
  
  
  It seems to me that 
  the only parts that get saved are the parts that get wet. 
  J 
  Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good 
  News!
  
  
  Helps clarify between 
  John the Dunker and John the Sprinkler.
  
  
  
  -- 
  slade
  
-Original 
Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 
21.33To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good 
News!
Slade Henson wrote: 

I wish I could tell 
you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of 
my question comes from this basic premise: it'smy understanding that 
Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at 
hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for 
the "taking."



-- 
slade
"Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is 
that the original language term?Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!









I respectfully disagree,
Terry. Iz



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:21 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!



Lance Muir wrote:



Terry, I see YOU as a disciple of Jesus.

 



===

Thank you Lance. That is very important to me. I wish that everyone 

could see that, but I am
afraid that it shows so seldom that most miss 

it when it happens.

Terry





 





--

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] Good News!









Im a believer in going all the way
on a good thingy. Izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
8:40 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







I see the smilen face and assume you
are joking. Tell me you are joking . . .











Bill







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:31 AM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!









It seems to me that the only
parts that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
4:30 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







Helps clarify between John the Dunker and
John the Sprinkler.











-- slade





-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005
21.33
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!

Slade Henson wrote: 



I wish I could tell you what PTillich's
thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from
this basic premise: it'smy understanding that Messiah and the Immerser
said, Repent! The Kingdom
 of God is at hand
and I think they meant it. It was there for the taking.











-- slade




Immerser. I like that
term. Your idea, or is that the original language term?
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-18 Thread Knpraise

In a message dated 1/18/2005 3:09:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I don't know what you mean about 'maturity' John - I do know this to be the context for the word perfect in some other places but in 1 Cor 13:10 'complete' would be better. We can know it refers to Christ rather than the Bible because
 of the setting ie: "Love never fails, now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face. Now I know in part - then I shall know as I am known" Vs.12 This speaks to me of the second coming. judyt


Which is not even alluded to in the passage. What is given, in terms of context, is this: When I was a child .. I thought as a child .. now that I have become a man ... I did away with childish things" (I Co 13:11). Keep in mind the purpose of this passage: to present a teaching that outlines conduct befitting those who are, in deed, mature -- allowing for the growth of (especially) the assembled relationship of the Body. Since the advice goes to relationships, it is and can be used in any discussion involving people, whether married or not, whether assembled or not (a church or a discussion group), whether between two friends or at a town hall meeting. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-18 Thread ttxpress




inyour 
resurrectionrubric, that'd be when?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:30:08 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  I don't disagree with the idea 
  that['the perfect']refers to the time of the 
  resurrection,

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!









Oh, please lets dont go
there. J Izzy 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
8:30 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







I'm fine with that, Izzy --as
long as that is not the same as saying,say,the only 'parts'
that get saved are the parts that get wet, 'cuz then we would have to
have a discussion about both baptismal regeneration and the acceptable modes of
baptism.











Bill







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:53 AM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!









Im a believer in going all the way
on a good thingy. Izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
8:40 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







I see the smilen face and assume you
are joking. Tell me you are joking . . .











Bill







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:31 AM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!









It seems to me that the only
parts that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
4:30 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







Helps clarify between John the Dunker and
John the Sprinkler.











-- slade





-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005
21.33
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!

Slade Henson wrote: 



I wish I could tell you what PTillich's
thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from
this basic premise: it'smy understanding that Messiah and the Immerser
said, Repent! The Kingdom
 of God is at hand
and I think they meant it. It was there for the taking.











-- slade




Immerser. I like that
term. Your idea, or is that the original language term?
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: Does the NC allow for Jesus having a physical body of flesh and
bones today?

Gregory A. Hession J.D. wrote:

  
  
  
  The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly
of nearly every bishop in the church, bathed in prayer, and intent on
dealing with heresy which had attempted to demean the nature of
Christ. I assume they got it right. Do you have some specific
disagreements with some of its precepts? It isn't scripture, so I can
understand your impulse to be wary.
  
  Gregory A. Hession J.D.
  
  


-- 
~~~
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] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Lance Muir

David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism
that is being addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of David(that would
be Linda), others say 'I am of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David,
sectarianianism does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks of 'the good
news of the gospel of Jesus' does he not? Surely there is no final standard
by which we determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I read you,
is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH on equal footing with David
Miller. This is so is it not?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 16, 2005 23:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!


 John wrote:
  We will never have unity based
  upon all saying the same thing 

 John, please do not overlook what I wrote in a previous post, which was:

 Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the
 parts I have emphasized.  Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we
 all say the same thing?

 1 Corinthians 1:10
 (10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that
 YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but
 that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME
 JUDGMENT.

 I take 1 Cor. 1:10 as an axiom of truth concerning the kind of unity that
 Jesus Christ expects from his followers.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


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

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


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Lance Muir

Syntax=Private interpretation while Dogma=Community of believers IMO.  TT
abounds with the former with David Miller at the 'head of the class'.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 17, 2005 00:45
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

 Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to
line
 up with Biblical language.

 For example, you wrote:
  The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post)
  ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing
  different things they didn't say the same thing; they said
  complementary things.

 Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul and
 James did speak the same thing.  They had the same mind and were in unity
of
 speech.  In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you,
but
 at the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of they didn't say
 the same thing cuts across the syntax of Scripture.  My concern is that
 people will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that
are
 not complementary.  In other words, they will be open to the relativism of
 our modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever they
 want.  The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and be
 relevant in some way.  It does not even have to be something that actually
 fits somewhere.

 It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurate
 of the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.  If they do fit
 together in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how
we
 have the same mind and how we do speak the same things.  In fact, if
someone
 were to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for him and justify
 his teachings.  Likewise with James.  When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Paul
 and misrepresented him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation
in
 Acts 21).

 Debbie wrote:
  They certainly don't sound the same;

 They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a different
 context.  They do sound the same when they are fit together in a whole and
 understood in relationship to one another.

 Debbie wrote:
  We can't use sameness as a necessary
  condition of rightness. To me that seems
  a scary direction to move in.

 Excellent point.  This distinguishes dogma from analysis.  Much of
 Christianity has missed it in relying upon dogma and using sameness as a
 condition of rightness.  Very excellent point.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

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

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

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!




[Debbie] Yes, David, of course 
anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is to do it 
wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and my 
interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the same 
thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible and 
less oblique than,what I did), but if you follow us both out to the end it 
is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least, 
compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there is no sacred vs 
profaneb) Torah-study takes in all of life-Original 
Message-From: David Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 
Monday, January 17, 2005 12:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!Excellent post, Debbie, but please do 
reconsider some of your syntax to lineup with Biblical language.For 
example, you wrote: The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a 
previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in 
emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they 
said complementary things.Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and 
Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did speak the same thing. They 
had the same mind and were in unity ofspeech. In the context of what 
you are saying above, I agree with you, butat the same time I am concerned 
that using the syntax of "they didn't saythe same thing" cuts across the 
syntax of Scripture. My concern is thatpeople will use what you are 
saying to justify actual disagreements that arenot complementary. In 
other words, they will be open to the relativism ofour modern educational 
system which allows people to believe whatever theywant. The 
assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and berelevant in some 
way. It does not even have to be something that actuallyfits 
somewhere.It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they 
are accurateof the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. 
If they do fittogether in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and 
we see how wehave the same mind and how we do speak the same things. 
In fact, if someonewere to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up 
for him and justifyhis teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews 
in Jerusalem maligned Pauland misrepresented him, James would speak up for 
him (hence the situation inActs 21).Debbie wrote: They 
certainly don't sound the same;They don't sound the same when taken out 
of context and put in a differentcontext. They do sound the same when 
they are fit together in a whole andunderstood in relationship to one 
another.Debbie wrote: We can't use sameness as a 
necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary 
direction to move in.Excellent point. This distinguishes dogma 
from analysis. Much ofChristianity has missed it in relying upon dogma 
and using sameness as acondition of rightness. Very excellent 
point.Peace be with you.David Miller.--"Let 
your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do 
not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be 
subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread ShieldsFamily









Titus 3:1Remind
them 2to malign no one,to
be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 

3For we also once were foolish
ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures,
spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 

9But avoid foolish controversies
and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable
and worthless.  
10Reject a factious man after a
first and second warning,  
11knowing that such a man is perverted
and is sinning, being self-condemned. 

If we are one in Christ we
will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior described above in Titus
3. We will be of one accord; each having different gifts and callings, but
peaceably agreeable with each other even when we disagree. Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005
11:15 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!







I may have been guilty of stretching the
Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are going to say the same thing
(even if in slightly different words), we may as well not converse.





-Original Message-
From: Debbie Sawczak
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005
12:10 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!



[Debbie] I don't agree with this either,
and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a
previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing
different things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things.
They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had
doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we
here will seem to be saying quite differentthings at times even when our
utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We
can't use sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a
scary direction to move in.











Unity presupposes diversity. A group
ofn
identical things can never be a unit;it will always be a group ofn units,
however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In
order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be
different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something
different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be
different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say
things.And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and
relinquishing the need tomatch for security.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!





ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  


  
  
  
  Titus 3:1Remind
them 2to malign no one,to
be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 
  
3For we also once were foolish
ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and
pleasures,
spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 
  
9But avoid foolish controversies
and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are
unprofitable
and worthless.  
10Reject a factious man after a
first and second warning,  
11knowing that such a man is perverted
and is sinning, being self-condemned. 
  If
we are one in Christ we
will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior described above in
Titus
3. We will be of one accord; each having different gifts and callings,
but
peaceably agreeable with each other even when we disagree. Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  

But we have never done it that
way. It defies TT tradition. Do you really think it might work? :-)
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




Good reminder. Thanks Izzy

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:55:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Titus 3:1Remind 
  them 2to malign no one,to be 
  peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.  
  3For we also once were 
  foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and 
  pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 
   9But 
  avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the 
  Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.  
  10Reject a factious man 
  after a first and second warning,  
  11knowing that such a man is 
  perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. 
  If 
  we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior 
  described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each having 
  different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each other even 
  when we disagree. Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Debbie 
  SawczakI may have been 
  guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are 
  going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we may as 
  well not converse.
  
From: Debbie Sawczak 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][Debbie] I don't 
agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and 
James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good 
News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; 
they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they 
did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And 
that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite 
differentthings at times even when our utterances fit into the same 
big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a 
necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move 
in.



Unity presupposes 
diversity. A group ofn identical things can 
never be a unit;it will always be a group ofn units, 
however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In 
order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be 
different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do 
something different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of 
things would be different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, 
and say things.And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and 
relinquishing the need to"match" for 
security.

Must confess that I didn't have much clue about what
Avram and Josef was trying to say. But seemingly this is another example of how
tradition conflicts with or makes of no
effect the truth of scripture.

There is a very clear separation of sacred
vs profane all through the scriptures and this is an area
thatIsrael violated constantly- Will we or won't we
learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6; Heb
4:3-6)?

Therefore thus says the Lord, if thou return, then will
I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my
mouth; let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them
(Jeremiah 15:19)

Her priests have violated my law, and have
profaned mine holy things; they have put
no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown
difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their
eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 22:26)

And they shall teach my people the
difference between the holy and profane, and cause
them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And
in controversy they shall stand in
judgment; and they shall judge it according to my
judgments, and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine
assemblies, and they shall hallow my sabbaths. (Ezekiel 44:23) judyt

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:07:07 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Debbie] Yes, David, of course
anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is to do it
wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and my
interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the same
thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible and
less oblique than,what I did), but if you follow us both out to the end it
is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least,
compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there is
no sacred vs profaneb) Torah-study takes in
all of lifeFrom: David
Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Excellent
post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to lineup with
Biblical language.For example, you wrote: The apostles Paul and
James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same
Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same
thing; they said complementary things.Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and
Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did speak the same
thing. They had the same mind and were in unity ofspeech. In the
context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, butat the same time
I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't saythe same thing" cuts
across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is thatpeople will use what
you are saying to justify actual disagreements that arenot
complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism
ofour modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever
theywant. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and
berelevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that
actuallyfits somewhere.It is important for us to see how our
perspectives, when they are accurateof the truth, actually fit together like
a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fittogether in complementary fashion, then
we see the whole, and we see how wehave the same mind and how we do speak
the same things. In fact, if someonewere to contradict James, Paul
would probably speak up for him and justifyhis teachings. Likewise
with James. When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Pauland misrepresented
him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation inActs
21).Debbie wrote: They certainly don't sound the
same;They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a
differentcontext. They do sound the same when they are fit together in
a whole andunderstood in relationship to one another.Debbie
wrote: We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of
rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move
in.Excellent point. This distinguishes dogma from analysis.
Much ofChristianity has missed it in relying upon dogma and using sameness
as acondition of rightness. Very excellent point.Peace be with
you.David Miller.--"Let your speech be always with
grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every
man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote:
 David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel
 of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism that is being
 addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of
 David(that would be Linda), others say 'I am
 of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David, sectarianism
 does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks
 of 'the good news of the gospel of Jesus' does he
 not? Surely there is no final standard by which we
 determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I
 read you, is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH
 on equal footing with David Miller. This is so is it not?

No, it is not so.  Paul was rebuking sectarianism.  We should not have 
anyone here saying, I am of David (I do NOT believe this is Linda) nor 
others saying, I am of Judy (who says this?).  We should all be seeking to 
be conformed to the image of Christ.  The final arbiter of truth is Jesus 
Christ.  Private interpretation of Scripture is NOT ALLOWED.  The reason we 
discuss with one another is to circumvent private interpretation.

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] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Lance Muir

Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself
or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, I am of
David. (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen'
David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at
least one disciple.

Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct
either myself or David on this. Further on this, David, are we reading the
same forum? Who among us says: What I'm about to say that differs with what
you say has no biblical foundation whatsoever, as I interpret Scripture.

Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda as having a dislike, if
not disdain, for 'tradition'? What, as y'all see it, replaces this
(tradition) is your (correct) interpretation of Scripture.By 'private' I'd
include those who both know what you mean and agree with your
interpretation.


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 17, 2005 12:47
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!


 Lance wrote:
  David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel
  of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism that is being
  addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of
  David(that would be Linda), others say 'I am
  of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David, sectarianism
  does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks
  of 'the good news of the gospel of Jesus' does he
  not? Surely there is no final standard by which we
  determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I
  read you, is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH
  on equal footing with David Miller. This is so is it not?

 No, it is not so.  Paul was rebuking sectarianism.  We should not have
 anyone here saying, I am of David (I do NOT believe this is Linda) nor
 others saying, I am of Judy (who says this?).  We should all be seeking
to
 be conformed to the image of Christ.  The final arbiter of truth is Jesus
 Christ.  Private interpretation of Scripture is NOT ALLOWED.  The reason
we
 discuss with one another is to circumvent private interpretation.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


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

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


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Bill Taylor




If 
we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior 
described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each having 
different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each other even when 
we disagree. Izzy





But we have never done it that way. 
It defies TT tradition. Do you really think it might work? 
:-)Terry

I don't know, Terry (and I 
hope your question is general enough to allow for my intrusion), but I fear if 
it does not, Christ will do with TT what he promises to do with congregations 
when they fail to repent, and that is, he will remove from us our lampstand, the 
result being that the darkness will be such that no one will be confused by any 
claims on our part to be his representatives on earth. There are lots of dead 
churches packed with members too stupid -- for whatever reason: pride being the 
most evident -- to dismount, but I don't really think the world really thinks 
they are a true representation of Christ. The truth is, I think the world knows 
better than that. Anyway, I sure hope that we can make it work 
out.

Bill


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:24 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
  ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  




Titus 
3:1Remind them 2to 
malign no one,to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all 
men.  3For we also once were foolish ourselves, 
disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our 
life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.  
9But avoid foolish 
controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for 
they are unprofitable and worthless.  
10Reject a factious man 
after a first and second warning,  
11knowing that such a man 
is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

Lance Muir wrote:
Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself
or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, I am of
David. (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen'
David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at
least one disciple.
 


Please stand corrected , brother Lance.  I have great respect for David 
Miller.  I have learned much from him.  He is my brother and I love 
him.  Often we are in agreement.  In my opinion, that does not make me 
his diciple.  It makes us brothers and friends.  That is enough.
Terry

--
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] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Jeff Powers

Lance, for the record, I agree with you here!  It's unfortunate that David 
M.(and a few others) is blind to the simple realities of this list.
Jeff

Life makes warriors of us all.
To emerge the victors, we must arm
ourselves with the most potent of weapons.
That weapon is prayer.
--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 14:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!


Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either 
myself
or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, I am of
David. (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen'
David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at
least one disciple.

Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct
either myself or David on this. Further on this, David, are we reading the
same forum? Who among us says: What I'm about to say that differs with 
what
you say has no biblical foundation whatsoever, as I interpret Scripture.

Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda as having a dislike, if
not disdain, for 'tradition'? What, as y'all see it, replaces this
(tradition) is your (correct) interpretation of Scripture.By 'private' I'd
include those who both know what you mean and agree with your
interpretation.
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 17, 2005 12:47
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!


Lance wrote:
 David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel
 of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism that is being
 addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of
 David(that would be Linda), others say 'I am
 of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David, sectarianism
 does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks
 of 'the good news of the gospel of Jesus' does he
 not? Surely there is no final standard by which we
 determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I
 read you, is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH
 on equal footing with David Miller. This is so is it not?
No, it is not so.  Paul was rebuking sectarianism.  We should not have
anyone here saying, I am of David (I do NOT believe this is Linda) nor
others saying, I am of Judy (who says this?).  We should all be seeking
to
be conformed to the image of Christ.  The final arbiter of truth is Jesus
Christ.  Private interpretation of Scripture is NOT ALLOWED.  The reason
we
discuss with one another is to circumvent private interpretation.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

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


--
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] Good News!





Bill Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  
  If
we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the
behavior described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each
having different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each
other even when we disagree. Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  But
we have never done it that way. It defies TT tradition. Do you really
think it might work? :-)
Terry
  
  I don't know, Terry (and I hope your question is general
enough to allow for my intrusion), but I fear if it does not, Christ
will do with TT what he promises to do with congregations when they
fail to repent, and that is, he will remove from us our lampstand, the
result being that the darkness will be such that no one will be
confused by any claims on our part to be his representatives on earth.
There are lots of dead churches packed with members too stupid -- for
whatever reason: pride being the most evident -- to dismount, but I
don't really think the world really thinks they are a true
representation of Christ. The truth is, I think the world knows better
than that. Anyway, I sure hope that we can make it work out.
  
  Bill

That is kind of an inside joke in our home church, Bill. It is all too
common, at least here in the Bible Belt, to hear that from deacons and
pastors. People question why we prefer to meet in homes, and we in
turn question some of the things done in the institutional church.
Often these things done in the IC have no biblical basis, and so when
we ask why they do it that way, the answer is "Because we have always
done it that way". Supposedly, if great grandpa and grandpa did it
that way, then that is the way it should be done. Scripture seems to
have nothing to do with it. Tradition is all important.
Couldn't help myself when I saw Izzy's post. Just had to point to our
recent tradition here.

I have a bad habit of sometimes responding without enough fore thought
to how it might be received. Need to work on that. I have zinged Jeff
twice this month and now I have to await his revenge. His silence to
this point causes me to fear and tremble.
Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread ShieldsFamily











Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!



Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either
myself

or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to,
I am of

David. (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you
'amen'

David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots
at

least one disciple. Lance are you saying that you object to any of us publicly
agreeing with posts that we think are exemplary? Dont many of you do
that when Jonathan or Bill or someone you agree with posts? This seems like a
petty complaint coming from you. 



Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone
correct

either myself or David on this. Further on this, David, are we reading
the

same forum? Who among us says: What I'm about to say that differs
with what

you say has no biblical foundation whatsoever, as I interpret
Scripture.



Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda as having a dislike,
if

not disdain, for 'tradition'? What, as y'all see it, replaces this

(tradition) is your (correct) interpretation of Scripture.By 'private'
I'd

include those who both know what you mean and agree with your

interpretation. Lance I have stated before that I value tradition; just not when it supersedes
scripture. 





Matt 15:3And
He answered and said to them, Why do you yourselves transgress the
commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?



Matt 15:6 And
by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.



Mark 7:8Neglecting
the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.



Mark 7:9 He was also
saying to them, You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God
in order to keep your tradition.



Mark 7:13 thus
invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and
you do many things such as that.



Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than
according to Christ.



Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote:
 Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts
 to, I am of David. (Linda, please illustrate for
 us with what frequency you 'amen' David
 (WOW that was an awesome post, David!)
 Sorry David, but ya gots at least one disciple.

Linda also has disagreed with some of my posts.  Expressing agreement does 
not make someone a disciple.  I have expressed agreement with you on some 
posts.  Does that mean that you think I am YOUR disciple?

Lance wrote:
 Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST
 ON TT!!

Some might privately interpret Scritpure, but for the believer, this is not 
allowed.  I would hope that anyone who expresses his viewpoint is doing so 
with the idea that someone will correct him if he is wrong.  Our goal is to 
adopt the message being conveyed by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, not our 
private interpretation of it.

Lance wrote:
 Who among us says: What I'm about to say
 that differs with what you say has no biblical
 foundation whatsoever, as I interpret Scripture.

I don't have that good a memory considering the volume of posts made here. 
Maybe it was Judy.  You had better ask whoever authored that what they 
meant.  I hope it does not mean that they have a right to interpret 
Scripture their way and others have a right to interpret Scripture in a 
different way.  It sounds to me like the meaning is that based upon their 
understanding of Scripture, what they are about to rebut has no Biblical 
foundation.

Lance wrote:
 Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda
 as having a dislike, if not disdain, for 'tradition'?

I can't speak for them, but for me, I appreciate tradition.  I would not say 
that I dislike tradition.  At the same time, I recognize bad tradition as 
well as good tradition.

Lance wrote:
 What, as y'all see it, replaces this (tradition) is your
 (correct) interpretation of Scripture.

No, you don't perceive it accurately here.  My view, and I assume that of 
Judy and Izzy also, is that Scripture is the ultimate authority, and if a 
tradition is not bearing good fruit, and it is not in Scripture, we should 
not be afraid to depart from it.  The truths of Scripture are eternal, but 
the fruitfulness of tradition is often temporary.

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] Good News!





e.g., the Prophetic 
tradition terminatd, acc to Scripture

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:45:25 -0500 
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:.. the fruitfulness of 
tradition is often temporary.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




What scripture?
Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" 
because that which is perfect is
Christ Himself and He has yet to come. 
jt

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:53:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  e.g., the Prophetic 
  tradition terminatd, acc to Scripture
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:45:25 -0500 
  "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:.. the fruitfulness of 
  tradition is often temporary.

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!




Hi 
Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a 
dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently 
than the texts you mention below."There is no sacred vs 
profane"means that life is not divided into two compartments, a 
spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything 
else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by 
our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not 
have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant. 

I'm 
confident we would agree on that.

Debbie

  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:54 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good 
  News!
  Must confess that I didn't have much clue about what 
  Avram and Josef was trying to say. But seemingly this is another example of 
  how tradition conflicts with or makes of 
  no effect the truth of scripture.
  
  There is a very clear separation of 
  sacred vs profane all through the scriptures and 
  this is an area thatIsrael violated constantly- Will we or won't 
  we learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6; Heb 
  4:3-6)?
  
  Therefore thus says the Lord, if thou return, then 
  will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as 
  my mouth; let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto 
  them (Jeremiah 15:19)
  
  Her priests have violated my law, and have 
  profaned mine holy things; they have put 
  no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they 
  shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid 
  their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 
  22:26)
  
  And they shall teach my people the 
  difference between the holy and profane, and cause 
  them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And 
  in controversy they shall stand in 
  judgment; and they shall judge it according to my 
  judgments, and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all 
  mine assemblies, and they shall hallow my sabbaths. (Ezekiel 44:23) judyt
  
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:07:07 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  [Debbie] Yes, David, of 
  course anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is 
  to do it wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and 
  my interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the 
  same thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible 
  and less oblique than,what I did), but if you follow us both out to the 
  end it is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least, 
  compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there 
  is no sacred vs profaneb) Torah-study 
  takes in all of lifeFrom: David 
  Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Excellent 
  post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to lineup with 
  Biblical language.For example, you wrote: The apostles Paul 
  and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the 
  same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say 
  the same thing; they said complementary things.Based upon 1 
  Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did 
  speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity 
  ofspeech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with 
  you, butat the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they 
  didn't saythe same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My 
  concern is thatpeople will use what you are saying to justify actual 
  disagreements that arenot complementary. In other words, they will 
  be open to the relativism ofour modern educational system which allows 
  people to believe whatever theywant. The assumption is that whatever 
  they believe will fit in and berelevant in some way. It does not 
  even have to be something that actuallyfits somewhere.It is 
  important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurateof the 
  truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do 
  fittogether in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see 
  how wehave the same mind and how we do speak the same things. In 
  fact, if someonewere to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for 
  him and justifyhis teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews 
  in Jerusalem maligned Pauland misrepresented him, James would speak up for 
  him (hence the situation inActs 21).Debbie wrote: They 
  certainly don't sound the same;They don't sound the same when taken 
  out of context and put in a differentcontext. They do sound the same 
  when they are fit together in a whole andunderstood in relationship to one 
  another.Debbie wrote: We can't use samene

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




first, what do you mean by 
*this*?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What scripture? *Please don't say 
  "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect 
  is
  Christ Himself and He has yet to 
  come.*

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




You didn't give the scripture to support your 
claim
And I've already heard the arguments from your 
tradition. jt

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  first, what do you mean by 
  *this*?
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
What scripture? *Please don't say 
"when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect 
is
Christ Himself and He has yet to 
come.*

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




Interesting perspective Debbie - I can agree that he 
(God)is relevant in all areas and that he does havethe supreme claim 
to our lives. However, this is mainly theory because facts are He will not 
intrude where we don't want Him and
if we prefer to do things our way, He lets us. He gave 
Israel their desire to the detriment of their souls when they craved meat in the 
wilderness and it is still possible to be worshipping Him with our lips while 
our hearts are far from Him. But thanks for the explanation. I appreciate 
it. jt

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:29:16 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Hi 
  Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that 
  is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses 
  the word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below."There 
  is no sacred vs profane"means that life is not 
  divided into two compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment 
  on the one hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no 
  part of life which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no 
  sphere of activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which 
  he is not relevant. 
  
  I'm 
  confident we would agree on that. Debbie
  
From: Judy Taylor 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Must confess that I didn't have much clue about 
what Avram and Josef was trying to say. But seemingly this is another 
example of how tradition conflicts with or 
makes of no effect the truth of 
scripture.

There is a very clear separation of 
sacred vs profane all through the scriptures and 
this is an area thatIsrael violated constantly- Will we or won't 
we learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6; Heb 
4:3-6)?

Therefore thus says the Lord, if thou return, then 
will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me; and 
if thou take forth the precious from the 
vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return unto thee; 
but return not thou unto them (Jeremiah 15:19)

Her priests have violated my law, and have 
profaned mine holy things; they have put 
no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they 
shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have 
hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 
22:26)

And they shall teach my people the 
difference between the holy and profane, and cause 
them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And 
in controversy they shall stand in 
judgment; and they shall judge it according to my 
judgments, and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all 
mine assemblies, and they shall hallow my sabbaths. (Ezekiel 44:23) judyt


On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:07:07 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Debbie] Yes, David, of 
course anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it 
is to do it wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's 
and my interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say 
the same thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more 
intelligible and less oblique than,what I did), but if you follow us 
both out to the end it is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at 
the very least, compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there is no sacred vs 
profaneb) Torah-study takes in all of lifeFrom: David Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of 
your syntax to lineup with Biblical language.For example, you 
wrote: The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous 
post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in 
emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they 
said complementary things.Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 
and Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did speak the same 
thing. They had the same mind and were in unity ofspeech. In 
the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, butat the 
same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't saythe 
same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is 
thatpeople will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements 
that arenot complementary. In other words, they will be open to 
the relativism ofour modern educational system which allows people to 
believe whatever theywant. The assumption is that whatever they 
believe will fit in and berelevant in some way. It does not even 
have to be something that actuallyfits somewhere.It is important 
for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurateof the truth, 
actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fittogether 
in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how wehave 
the same mind and how we do speak the same

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




it was nice talkin'with 
ya

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:28:33 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  You didn't give the scripture to support your 
  claim
  And I've already heard the arguments from your 
  tradition. jt
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
first, what do you mean by 
*this*?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What scripture? *Please don't say 
  "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect 
  is
  Christ Himself and He has yet to 
  come.*

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




You don't have to run off if I am wrong and you have 
some other foundational scriptureto support your
claim that propecy is a thing of the past. The argument 
I always heard was "that which is perfect is the
Bible" and this is why prophecy is no longer 
needed. Is this your stance?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:42:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  it was nice talkin'with 
  ya
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:28:33 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
You didn't give the scripture to support your 
claim
And I've already heard the arguments from your 
tradition. jt

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  first, what do you mean by 
  *this*?
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
What scripture? *Please don't 
say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect 
is
Christ Himself and He has yet to 
come.*

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




what does this 
mean/imply?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..if..you have some other foundational 
  scripture
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




Do you have any scripture other than the one I 
mentioned to support why you
believe that the prophetic gifting is not for 
today?

I have a question also - what kind of ISP do you hav? 
It amazes me how fast
these messages get from CO to VA

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  what does this 
  mean/imply?
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..if..you have some other 
foundational scripture
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Kevin Deegan

Onceyou hit send,delivery could take well nigh to 20 milliseconds!

Message Queing may take up to a minute or two, or asecond on a fast serverJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Do you have any scripture other than the one I mentioned to support why you
believe that the prophetic gifting is not for today?

I have a question also - what kind of ISP do you hav? It amazes me how fast
these messages get from CO to VA

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

what does this mean/imply?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..if..you have some other foundational scripture
||

		Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




A. i don't recognize your 
question in a live/crucial cntxt

B. ISP: 
Netzero

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:10:06 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  [A.]Do you have any scripture other than the one I 
  mentioned to support why you
  believe that the prophetic gifting is 
  not for today?
  
  [B.]what kind of ISP do you hav? It amazes me how 
  fast
  these messages get from CO to 
  VA
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
what does this 
mean/imply?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..if..you have some other 
  foundational scripture
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Jeff Powers




Relax Terry, I promise not to be mean! :)
Jeff

Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, 
we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is 
prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 
14:59
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good 
  News!I have a bad habit of sometimes responding without enough fore 
  thought to how it might be received. Need to work on that. I have 
  zinged Jeff twice this month and now I have to await his revenge. His 
  silence to this point causes me to fear and 
tremble.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




Thanks Kevin and Gary for the answer to [B], Juno and 
Netzero are in cahoots
but I'm still amazed by the speed.

As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial context?" 
That's a new one on me.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:25:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  A. i don't recognize your 
  question in a live/crucial cntxt
  
  B. ISP: 
  Netzero
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:10:06 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
[A.]Do you have any scripture other than the one I 
mentioned to support why you
believe that the prophetic gifting 
is not for today?

[B.]what kind of ISP do you hav? It amazes me how 
fast
these messages get from CO to 
VA

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  what does this 
  mean/imply?
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..if..you have some other 
foundational scripture
||

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Slade Henson




Hello 
again, Debbie.

I 
enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in context. 
Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed to 
recently?

-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: Debbie 
  SawczakSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29Subject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!
  Hi 
  Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is 
  a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently 
  than the texts you mention below."There is no sacred vs 
  profane"means that life is not divided into two compartments, a 
  spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything 
  else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by 
  our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does 
  not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not 
relevant.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




e.g. in a micro sense, the Ap 
Paulpaints eschatology inartcomplementary tothe Ap 
John's; independent artists yet togethr,perhaps unwittingly except for the 
HS upon them, they are the synergistic composers of a tangibleNT 
'l/cc'

in a macro sense, there are 
numerous revelatory phenomena in the NT era, per 
se,whichall Apostolic artsorts 
imageryto/withinthe overarching NT 
'l/cc'

in quick sum, 
Apostolicartistselevatd or subordinatd NT art-events tothe 
comprehensive,thoroughgoing satisfaction of the HS-curator on Earth--it's 
this curator'spersonally endowedgallery solicitedonce in time 
inwhch all of the relevant arttactically and tactfully 
arrays/displaysone subtle (postOT)theme (retrospectvly)abt the 
KoG: the presence of the future in Christ


G


On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:44 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial context?" 
  ..

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




(revisdversion of parag 2, below)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  e.g. in a micro sense, the Ap 
  Paulpaints eschatology inartcomplementary tothe Ap 
  John's; independent artists yet togethr,perhaps unwittingly except for 
  the HS upon them, they are the synergistic composers of a 
  tangibleNT 'l/cc'
  
  [2.]in a macro sense, there are numerous revelatory 
  phenomena in the NT era, per se,[in] 
  whichall [the associatd] Apostolic 
  artsorts imageryto/withinthe overarching NT 
  'l/cc'
  
  in quick sum, 
  Apostolicartistselevatd or subordinatd NT art-events tothe 
  comprehensive,thoroughgoing satisfaction of the HS-curator on 
  Earth--it's this curator'spersonally endowedgallery 
  solicitedonce in time inwhch all of the relevant 
  arttactically and tactfully arrays/displaysone subtle 
  (postOT)theme (retrospectvly)abt the KoG: the presence of the 
  future in Christ
  
  
  G
  
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:44 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial 
context?" ..

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




Yeah well Gary we are the "future in Christ" - we are 
living it and walking it out daily .. I submit that
we need all the help we can get.. jt

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  (revisdversion of parag 2, below)
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
e.g. in a micro sense, the Ap 
Paulpaints eschatology inartcomplementary tothe Ap 
John's; independent artists yet togethr,perhaps unwittingly except for 
the HS upon them, they are the synergistic composers of a 
tangibleNT 'l/cc'

[2.]in a macro sense, there are numerous revelatory 
phenomena in the NT era, per se,[in] whichall [the 
associatd] Apostolic artsorts 
imageryto/withinthe overarching NT 
'l/cc'

in quick sum, 
Apostolicartistselevatd or subordinatd NT art-events tothe 
comprehensive,thoroughgoing satisfaction of the HS-curator on 
Earth--it's this curator'spersonally endowedgallery 
solicitedonce in time inwhch all of the relevant 
arttactically and tactfully arrays/displaysone subtle 
(postOT)theme (retrospectvly)abt the KoG: the presence of 
the future in Christ


G


On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:44 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial 
  context?" ..

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Slade Henson




Does 
this mean you don't believe in the Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT 
in Christ?

  -Original Message-From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 
  17 January, 2005 21.00Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good 
  News!
  arrays/displaysone subtle 
  (postOT)theme (retrospectvly)abt the KoG: the presence of the 
  future in Christ

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




existentialism and 
the NTaremergd in, e.g., PTillich's thought/s--what's his take on 
the KoG?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:23:59 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Does 
  this mean you don't believe in the Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT 
  in Christ?
  
-Original Message-From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 
Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.00Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good 
News!
arrays/displaysone 
subtle (postOT)theme (retrospectvly)abt the KoG: the 
presence of the future in Christ

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




not sure what you mean, jt...e.g. 
while embracg Wesley's view/s, you believe that..

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:22:48 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..we are the "future in Christ" - we are living it 
  and walking it out daily .. I submit that
  we need all the help we can get.. 
  jt
  ||

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Slade Henson




I wish 
I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The 
root of my question comes from this basic premise: it'smy 
understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The 
Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there 
for the "taking."

-- 
slade

  From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.43
  "existentialism and the 
  NTaremergd in, e.g., PTillich's thought/s--what's his take on the 
  KoG?"
  
  From:Slade HensonSent: Mon, 17 Jan 
  2005 21:23:59"Does this mean you don't believe in the 
  Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT in Christ?"
  
  From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.00"arrays/displaysone subtle 
  (postOT)theme (retrospectvly)abt the KoG: the presence of the 
  future in Christ"

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




ok--thx for the clarification, 
Slade..'is at hand' in the NT means that the KoG has come ~'close enough 
to touch', mng that the KoG did not eminate from|w/i time..therefor 
it is not the presnce of the 'present' on display in the NT (else we'll pass 
like ships in the night..i'llsimply hand you ovr to Tillich, 
et.al.)

G

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:03:19 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I 
  wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he 
  is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: 
  it'smy understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, 
  "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think 
  they meant it. It was there for the "taking."
  
  -- 
  slade
  
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.43
"existentialism and the 
NTaremergd in, e.g., PTillich's thought/s--what's his take on 
the KoG?"

From:Slade HensonSent: Mon, 17 
Jan 2005 21:23:59"Does this mean you 
don't believe in the Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT in 
Christ?"

From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.00"arrays/displaysone subtle 
(postOT)theme (retrospectvly)abt the KoG: the presence of 
the future in Christ"

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!





Slade Henson wrote:

  
  
  I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts
are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from
this basic premise: it'smy understanding that
Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God
is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for
the "taking."
  
  -- slade


"Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original
language term?
Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!




There 
are several threads on my loom, Slade. Probably the two most important, in terms 
of your comment, are Mennonite and Reformed (oddly enough, given the history of 
those two groups).I meanthe horse-and-buggy, 
no-phoneMennonites, who, as an ethnoreligious minority (like devout Jews) 
have their faith and culture inextricably bound up together. In their case it 
has heldbecause they've chosen to live as separate from the world as they 
can, and this choice comes out of what they believe about God and salvation. I 
wasn't raised in this type of Mennonite community, but my mother was (until her 
parents were excommunicated), andI inherited from her the idea that faith 
permeates all of life. Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot like Yiddish, BTW! 
:-)

The 
sameidea iscentral to the Reformed tradition.That thread has 
entered my life through Christian schooling (as student, teacher, and involved 
parent), a Reformed specialty.I could blather on forever about this, but 
for now I'll just say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of 
whichmaintains an unconsciously compartmentalized(and therefore 
"safe")approachwhile the otherworkshard and fearlessly 
at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know about the 
second kind (and in fact the huge, rapidinflux of frightened non-Reformed 
folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but I'm very 
grateful to God for the privilegeof having experienced 
it.

Other 
major threads are Catholic (my husband--and I could writea whole nother 
discourse about this in relation toDavid's comments about marriage, 
unity,and "saying the same thing")andevangelical. I grew up in 
your standard evangelical-type church,against whose compartmentalizing 
effect the other influences prevailed.

As for 
what I've been exposed to recently: Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and N.T. 
Wright, for starters. Thanks for asking!

Debbie

  -Original Message-From: Slade Henson 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:24 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!
  Hello again, Debbie.
  
  I 
  enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in 
  context. Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed to 
  recently?
  
  -- 
  slade
  
-Original Message-From: Debbie 
SawczakSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29Subject: 
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Hi 
Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that 
is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" 
differently than the texts you mention below."There is no sacred vs 
profane"means that life is not divided into two compartments, a 
spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything 
else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected 
by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he 
does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not 
relevant.

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread ShieldsFamily









Fascinating, Debbie. Terry recently
started a thingy of telling about himself and his life, then some
others did. Id be interested to hear any more about you that you
care to share. I also love the idea of an integrated faith/life. I
dont know exactly where I picked up the idea, but it just came. Id
love to hear more of your take on it. Also Im afraid I dont
know what you mean by Reformedcould you explain what that
is? Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005
10:04 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







There are several threads on my loom,
Slade. Probably the two most important, in terms of your comment, are Mennonite
and Reformed (oddly enough, given the history of those two groups).I
meanthe horse-and-buggy, no-phoneMennonites, who, as an
ethnoreligious minority (like devout Jews) have their faith and culture
inextricably bound up together. In their case it has heldbecause they've
chosen to live as separate from the world as they can, and this choice comes
out of what they believe about God and salvation. I wasn't raised in this type
of Mennonite community, but my mother was (until her parents were excommunicated),
andI inherited from her the idea that faith permeates all of life.
Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot like Yiddish, BTW! :-)











The sameidea iscentral to the
Reformed tradition.That thread has entered my life through Christian
schooling (as student, teacher, and involved parent), a Reformed
specialty.I could blather on forever about this, but for now I'll just
say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of whichmaintains an
unconsciously compartmentalized(and therefore
safe)approachwhile the otherworkshard and
fearlessly at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know
about the second kind (and in fact the huge, rapidinflux of frightened
non-Reformed folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but
I'm very grateful to God for the privilegeof having experienced it.











Other major threads are Catholic (my
husband--and I could writea whole nother discourse about this in relation
toDavid's comments about marriage, unity,and saying the same
thing)andevangelical. I grew up in your standard
evangelical-type church,against whose compartmentalizing effect the other
influences prevailed.











As for what I've been exposed to recently:
Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and N.T. Wright, for starters. Thanks for
asking!











Debbie





-Original Message-
From: Slade Henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005
8:24 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!



Hello again, Debbie.











I enjoyed your thoughts here. Your
noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in context. Pray tell... what is your
background or what have you been exposed to recently?











-- slade





-Original Message-
From: Debbie Sawczak
Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005
17.29
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!



Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase
there is no sacred vs profane, as that is a dualism perhaps
unfamiliar to you, which uses the word profane differently than the
texts you mention below.There is no sacred vs
profanemeans that life is not divided into two compartments, a
spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything
else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by
our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does
not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant.

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!




I just 
realized that there's a seeming irony there; the Mennonites try tolive 
"separate from the world", in the sense of separate from the mainstream of 
society, but the resultis that theirreligion (such as it is) is not 
separate fromlife. Meanwhile the Reformed strand achievesa similar 
degree of integration in trying to involve itself, redemptively,in the 
mainstream of society. 

The 
compartmentalized Christian, on the other hand, is so uncritically involved in 
the mainstream as to be conformed to it except for the little chunk oflife 
thatis explicitly taken up with church, Bible study, prayer, and the 
like.

Debbie

  -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:04 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!
  There are several threads on my loom, Slade. Probably the two most 
  important, in terms of your comment, are Mennonite and Reformed (oddly enough, 
  given the history of those two groups).I meanthe horse-and-buggy, 
  no-phoneMennonites, who, as an ethnoreligious minority (like devout 
  Jews) have their faith and culture inextricably bound up together. In their 
  case it has heldbecause they've chosen to live as separate from the 
  world as they can, and this choice comes out of what they believe about God 
  and salvation. I wasn't raised in this type of Mennonite community, but my 
  mother was (until her parents were excommunicated), andI inherited from 
  her the idea that faith permeates all of life. Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot 
  like Yiddish, BTW! :-)
  
  The 
  sameidea iscentral to the Reformed tradition.That thread has 
  entered my life through Christian schooling (as student, teacher, and involved 
  parent), a Reformed specialty.I could blather on forever about this, but 
  for now I'll just say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of 
  whichmaintains an unconsciously compartmentalized(and therefore 
  "safe")approachwhile the otherworkshard and fearlessly 
  at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know about the 
  second kind (and in fact the huge, rapidinflux of frightened 
  non-Reformed folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but 
  I'm very grateful to God for the privilegeof having experienced 
  it.
  
  Other major threads are Catholic (my husband--and I could writea 
  whole nother discourse about this in relation toDavid's comments about 
  marriage, unity,and "saying the same thing")andevangelical. 
  I grew up in your standard evangelical-type church,against whose 
  compartmentalizing effect the other influences prevailed.
  
  As 
  for what I've been exposed to recently: Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and 
  N.T. Wright, for starters. Thanks for asking!
  
  Debbie
  
-Original Message-From: Slade Henson 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 
8:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Good News!
Hello again, Debbie.

I 
enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in 
context. Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed 
to recently?

-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: Debbie 
  SawczakSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29Subject: 
  RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
  Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs 
  profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the 
  word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below."There 
  is no sacred vs profane"means that life is not divided into two 
  compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one 
  hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life 
  which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of 
  activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is 
  not relevant.

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!




OK, 
but I have to sleep first! (It's 12:30 a.m. here.) For now I'll just add this: I 
can talk the talk, but that doesn't mean I have the integration thing 
down.The principal I taught under in the Christian school used 
"evidence of struggle" as one of his criteria of 
authenticity.

Debbie

  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 
  12:01 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!
  
  Fascinating, 
  Debbie. Terry recently started a thingy of telling about himself and 
  his life, then some others did. Id be interested to hear any more about 
  you that you care to share. I also love the idea of an integrated 
  faith/life. I dont know exactly where I picked up the idea, but it just 
  came. Id love to hear more of your take on it. Also Im afraid I 
  dont know what you mean by Reformedcould you explain what that is? 
  Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Debbie 
  SawczakSent: Monday, January 
  17, 2005 10:04 PMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good 
  News!
  
  
  There are several 
  threads on my loom, Slade. Probably the two most important, in terms of your 
  comment, are Mennonite and Reformed (oddly enough, given the history of those 
  two groups).I meanthe horse-and-buggy, no-phoneMennonites, 
  who, as an ethnoreligious minority (like devout Jews) have their faith and 
  culture inextricably bound up together. In their case it has heldbecause 
  they've chosen to live as separate from the world as they can, and this choice 
  comes out of what they believe about God and salvation. I wasn't raised in 
  this type of Mennonite community, but my mother was (until her parents were 
  excommunicated), andI inherited from her the idea that faith permeates 
  all of life. Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot like Yiddish, BTW! 
  :-)
  
  
  
  The sameidea 
  iscentral to the Reformed tradition.That thread has entered my 
  life through Christian schooling (as student, teacher, and involved parent), a 
  Reformed specialty.I could blather on forever about this, but for now 
  I'll just say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of 
  whichmaintains an unconsciously compartmentalized(and therefore 
  "safe")approachwhile the otherworkshard and fearlessly 
  at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know about the 
  second kind (and in fact the huge, rapidinflux of frightened 
  non-Reformed folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but 
  I'm very grateful to God for the privilegeof having experienced 
  it.
  
  
  
  Other major threads 
  are Catholic (my husband--and I could writea whole nother discourse 
  about this in relation toDavid's comments about marriage, 
  unity,and "saying the same thing")andevangelical. I grew up 
  in your standard evangelical-type church,against whose 
  compartmentalizing effect the other influences 
  prevailed.
  
  
  
  As for what I've been 
  exposed to recently: Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and N.T. Wright, for 
  starters. Thanks for asking!
  
  
  
  Debbie
  
-Original 
Message-From: Slade 
Henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:24 
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good 
News!

Hello again, 
Debbie.



I enjoyed your 
thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in context. Pray 
tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed to 
recently?



-- 
slade
-Original 
  Message-From: Debbie 
  SawczakSent: Monday, 17 
  January, 2005 17.29Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good 
  News!
  
  Hi Judy, let me 
  paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a 
  dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" 
  differently than the texts you mention below."There is no sacred vs 
  profane"means that life is not divided into two compartments, a 
  spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and 
  everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is 
  not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity 
  over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not 
  relevant.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-17 Thread Knpraise

In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:31:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

What scripture? *Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect is
 Christ Himself and He has yet to come. *



This is clearly speaking of maturity -- that is if immediate context means anything at all.

J

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt
 


Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. 

Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




 Unity is the show of love DESPITE not 
saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of 
following Christwe are saying the same thing. It is not a 
rational or scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones 
self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy 
in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother 
disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about 
it.

Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, 
Mass.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 3:53 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
  In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  jt: Three 
hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which 
unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a 
Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to 
dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt 
  Huh??? We will never have unity based 
  upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each 
  recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that 
  circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) 
  would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But 
  that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong 
  --- but probably not. Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Unity is the show of love DESPITE not
saying the same thing in the theological details, because
on the main issue of following Christwe are saying the same
thing. It is not a rational or scriptural goal to aspire to
get everyone to agree with ones self. The goal, rather, should be
to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is what is required.
Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame
of mind to be disagreeable about it.

I don't know that this is true Gregory;the
question I have is "who is this Christ, who is Jesus?" He appears to be
chameleon like amongst those who profess to be His disciples, and He is the
main issue - would you agree?

He is the Truth and on this list there is little
agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all kinds
of different wayson TT. He is the Life, what kind of life?
Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The apostle Paul wrote to
the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same
thing" - this is the kind of unity we need - right now we are not all saying
the same thing. jht

In a message dated
1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
jt: Three hits Gregory -
Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which
unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at
a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren
to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same
thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the
servant/Master relationship and giving honor and
space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans
14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this
forum.. But that ain't going to happen either.
I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

Judy: I agree that we cannot have a mealy-mouthed,
squishy, Barney the Dinosaur, We-are-the-World,Everything-Is-Beautiful
Jesus. Let's assume that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the
Scriptures, the Jesus of the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of God,
light of true light, The Jesustestified to by the Apostles,
martyrs,and saints in the church through the ages, and the Jesus who is
coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to whom every knee
will bow and every tongue confess he is Lord. Good
enuf?

Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield,
Mass.

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:18
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Unity is the show of love DESPITE
not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christwe are
saying the same thing. It is not a rational or scriptural
goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones self. The
goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is
what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees,
because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about
it.

He is the Truth and on this list there is little
agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all
kinds of different wayson TT. He is the Life, what kind of life?
Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The apostle Paul wrote
to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the
same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need - right now we are not all
saying the same thing. jht

In a message dated
1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
jt: Three hits Gregory -
Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which
unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133
at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for
brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!!
judyt
Huh??? We will never
have unity based upon "all saying the same thing "
Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and
space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans
14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this
forum.. But that ain't going to happen
either. I could be wrong --- but
probably not. Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

Can you be sure the Jesus of the apostles is the same
Jesus as the Nicene Creed? jht

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:28:27 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Judy: I agree that we cannot have a mealy-mouthed,
squishy, Barney the Dinosaur, We-are-the-World,Everything-Is-Beautiful
Jesus. Let's assume that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the
Scriptures, the Jesus of the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of
God, light of true light, The Jesustestified to by the Apostles,
martyrs,and saints in the church through the ages, and the Jesus who is
coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to whom every knee
will bow and every tongue confess he is Lord. Good
enuf?

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Unity is the show of love DESPITE
not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christwe are
saying the same thing. It is not a rational or
scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones
self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and
mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if
a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be
disagreeable about it.

He is the Truth and on this list there is little
agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all
kinds of different wayson TT. He is the Life, what kind of
life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The
apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same
rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need -
right now we are not all saying the same thing.
jht

In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
jt: Three hits Gregory -
Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which
unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133
at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for
brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!!
judyt
Huh??? We will
never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing
" Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and
space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans
14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on
this forum.. But that ain't going to happen
either. I could be wrong --- but
probably not. Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly of nearly
every bishop in the church, bathed in prayer, and intent on dealing with heresy
which had attempted to demean the nature of Christ. I assume they got it
right. Do you have some specific disagreements with some of its
precepts? It isn't scripture, so I can understand your impulse to be
wary.

Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield,
Mass.

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:38
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

Can you be sure the Jesus of the apostles is the same
Jesus as the Nicene Creed? jht

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:28:27 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Judy: I agree that we cannot have a
mealy-mouthed, squishy, Barney the Dinosaur,
We-are-the-World,Everything-Is-Beautiful Jesus. Let's assume
that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus of
the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of God, light of true light,
The Jesustestified to by the Apostles, martyrs,and saints in the
church through the ages, and the Jesus who is coming again in glory to judge
the living and the dead, and to whom every knee will bow and every tongue
confess he is Lord. Good enuf?

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Unity is the show of love
DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christwe are
saying the same thing. It is not a rational or
scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones
self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace
and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't
matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind
to be disagreeable about it.

I don't know that this is true
Gregory;the question I have is "who is this Christ, who is Jesus?"
He appears to be chameleon like amongst those who profess to be His
disciples, and He is the main issue - would you agree?

He is the Truth and on this list there is
little agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will
hear all kinds of different wayson TT. He is the Life, what kind
of life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The
apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same
rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need -
right now we are not all saying the same thing.
jht

In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
jt: Three hits Gregory
- Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which
unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps
133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is,
for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!!
judyt
Huh??? We will
never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing
" Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and
space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of
Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker
problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen
either. I could be wrong --- but
probably not. Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

I don't know about the "bathed in prayer" part because
they were constantly banishing each other. It was the beginning of the
Church/State merger era when (because of Constantine) the Church began to wield the power of the heathen state which was
never the will of the Lord who said "Render unto Caesar the things that are
Caesars " "My Kingdom is not of this world..." and so began the most
shameful era in the annals of Church history. As for the hereticks.
How was Arius any worse than those proclaiming orthodoxy? You see the
fruit of orthodoxy in the RCC of today with all of it's blasphemy and error and
in thebloodshed and hatred between Serbs and Croats during WW2 and to this
present day. So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy to discern or to
lead me totruth. jht

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:02:30 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly of nearly
every bishop in the church, bathed in prayer, and intent on dealing with
heresy which had attempted to demean the nature of Christ. I assume they
got it right. Do you have some specific disagreements with some of its
precepts? It isn't scripture, so I can understand your impulse to be
wary.

From: Judy Taylor

Can you be sure the Jesus
of the apostles is the same Jesus as the Nicene Creed? jht

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:28:27 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Judy: I agree that we cannot have a
mealy-mouthed, squishy, Barney the Dinosaur,
We-are-the-World,Everything-Is-Beautiful Jesus. Let's assume
that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus
of the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of God, light of true
light, The Jesustestified to by the Apostles, martyrs,and
saints in the church through the ages, and the Jesus who is coming again
in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to whom every knee will bow
and every tongue confess he is Lord. Good enuf?

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Unity is the show of love
DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christwe
are saying the same thing. It is not a rational or
scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones
self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace
and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't
matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of
mind to be disagreeable about it.

I don't know that this is true
Gregory;the question I have is "who is this Christ, who is
Jesus?" He appears to be chameleon like amongst those who profess to
be His disciples, and He is the main issue - would you
agree?

He is the Truth and on this list there is
little agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will
hear all kinds of different wayson TT. He is the Life, what kind
of life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The
apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same
rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need
- right now we are not all saying the same thing.
jht

In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46
PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
jt: Three hits
Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing
which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to
sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how
pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity...
Amen!! judyt Huh???
We will never have unity based upon "all saying
the same thing " Unity is based upon each
recognizing the servant/Master
relationship and giving honor and space to that
circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14
(esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this
forum.. But that ain't going to happen
either. I could be wrong --- but
probably not. Jd

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread ShieldsFamily













So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy
to discern or to lead me totruth. jht













Same here Judy. Same here. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the 
elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our own 
prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before 
us.They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before 
rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to these 
great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood.


Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, 
Mass.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:21 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
  
  
  
  
  So No, I don't trust creeds or 
  orthodoxy to discern or to lead me totruth. 
  jht
  
  
  

Same here Judy. Same here. 
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




The great cloud of witnesses referred to in the book of 
Hebrews areOT Saints; I'm in agreement with and will submit myself to all 
through whom I hear the voice of the Chief Shepherd. Which "great saints" 
who were martyrs do you refer to here Gregory? PS I'm not alone and 
adrift. Believe it or not there are others who believe as I do. 
jht

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:47:25 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the 
  elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our 
  own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before 
  us.They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before 
  rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to 
  these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood.
  
  
  Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, 
  Mass.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:21 
    PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good 
News!




So No, I don't trust creeds or 
orthodoxy to discern or to lead me totruth. 
jht



  
  Same here Judy. Same 
  here. 
  Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread Slade Henson




Thank 
you, Greg. This coincides with my understanding of 2 Peter 
1:20

-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Gregory A. 
  Hession J.D.Sent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 18.47To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good 
  News!
  You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the 
  elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our 
  own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before 
  us.They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before 
  rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to 
  these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood.
  
  
  Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, 
  Mass.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:21 
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good 
News!




So No, I don't trust creeds or 
orthodoxy to discern or to lead me totruth. 
jht



  
  Same here Judy. Same 
  here. 
  Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
 Huh???   We will never have unity based
 upon all saying the same thing 

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating 
your case.  It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same 
thing.  This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each 
other.  There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in 
doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing.

A good example of this is Paul and James.  Paul emphasized justification by 
grace through faith apart from works while James emphasized justification by 
works and not by faith alone.  Yet, they both accepted one another's 
teachings, even though they emphasized different things.  In effect, they 
spoke the same thing, and this is abundantly clear when we read Acts 15 and 
see their complete agreement together, as well as Acts 21 and Paul's taking 
of the Nazarite vow.

Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the 
parts I have emphasized.  Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we 
all say the same thing?

1 Corinthians 1:10
(10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but 
that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME 
JUDGMENT.

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] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread ShieldsFamily









Greg, its great for guidancejust
doesnt carry the weight of scripture. IMO Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory A. Hession J.D.
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005
5:47 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!







You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the
elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our own
prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before
us.They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before
rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to these
great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood.

















Gregory A. Hession J.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Springfield, Mass.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Sunday, January
16, 2005 6:21 PM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Good News!













So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy
to discern or to lead me totruth. jht













Same here Judy. Same here. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread Slade Henson




Tradition is great for guidance, this is true, even though it's 
not Scripture. This is also what Greg said. It's good to get 
confirmation from you, however. Thanks. 

-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  ShieldsFamilySent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 
  20.12Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
  
  Greg, its great for 
  guidancejust doesnt carry the weight of scripture. IMO 
  Izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From:Gregory A. Hession 
  J.D.Sent: Sunday, January 
  16, 2005 5:47 PMSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!
  
  
  You may want to re-consider 
  rejecting the wisdom of the elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just 
  adrift in the sea of our own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of 
  witnesses that went before us.They left a great legacy, and we 
  should be careful before rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who 
  are WE, compared to these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in 
  blood.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




what is (and is not) orthodox to 
you? 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:00:29 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't trust..orthodoxy to discern or 
  to lead me totruth.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
Huh??? We will never have unity based
upon "all saying the same thing "

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating 
your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same 
thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each 
other. There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in 
doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing.

I do not believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, that's me. 

John.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
 We will never have unity based
 upon all saying the same thing 

John, please do not overlook what I wrote in a previous post, which was:

Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the
parts I have emphasized.  Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we
all say the same thing?

1 Corinthians 1:10
(10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but
that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME
JUDGMENT.

I take 1 Cor. 1:10 as an axiom of truth concerning the kind of unity that 
Jesus Christ expects from his followers.

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] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread Debbie Sawczak




[Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The 
apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in 
the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same 
thing; they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if 
they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And 
that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite 
differentthings at times even when our utterances fit into the same big 
picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary 
condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move 
in.

Unity 
presupposes diversity. A group ofn identical things can never be 
a unit;it will always be a group ofn units, however tightly 
and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of 
things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence the body 
image. Not only does the foot do something different from the ear, but 
I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our 
diversity is how we experience, see, and say things.And part of faith is 
trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need to"match" for 
security.


  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 
  1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  John wrote:Huh??? We will never have unity 
basedupon "all saying the same thing "I don't disagree 
with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your 
case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same 
thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot 
each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different 
things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the 
same thing.I do not believe I over state 
  anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the 
  above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If 
  you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the same 
  conclusions, share in an identical theology -- I 
  respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think for 
  themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. In a 
  practical sense, I have no idea how this statement works: 
  There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so 
  we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I 
  would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us to 
  emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other's 
  relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, that's 
  me. John.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




this has a distinctly evangelical 
ring to it in a cultic environment

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:09:38 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  [Debbie] I 
  don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul 
  and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good 
  News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they 
  said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, 
  Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just 
  it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite 
  differentthings at times even when our utterances fit into the same big 
  picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary 
  condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move 
  in.
  
  Unity 
  presupposes diversity. A group ofn identical things can never 
  be a unit;it will always be a group ofn units, however 
  tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a 
  number of things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence 
  the body image. Not only does the foot do something different from 
  the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! 
  Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say things.And part 
  of faith is trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need 
  to"match" for security.
  
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
    [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 
1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
John wrote:Huh??? We will never have unity 
  basedupon "all saying the same thing "I don't disagree 
  with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your 
  case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same 
  thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot 
  each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different 
  things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the 
  same thing.I do not believe I over state 
anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the 
above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If 
you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the 
same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- 
I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think 
for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. 
In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement 
works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, 
but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same 
thing. I would change this sentence to say: There 
is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we 
should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 
14:4. But, that's me. John.

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread Debbie Sawczak




I may 
have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we 
really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we 
may as well not converse.

  -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!
  [Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. 
  The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately 
  believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they 
  didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly 
  don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the 
  canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to 
  be saying quite differentthings at times even when our utterances fit 
  into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use 
  sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary 
  direction to move in.
  
  Unity presupposes diversity. A group ofn identical 
  things can never be a unit;it will always be a group ofn 
  units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. 
  In order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be 
  different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something 
  different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be 
  different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say 
  things.And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and 
  relinquishing the need to"match" for security.
  
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 
1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
John wrote:Huh??? We will never have unity 
  basedupon "all saying the same thing "I don't disagree 
  with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your 
  case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same 
  thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot 
  each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different 
  things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the 
  same thing.I do not believe I over state 
anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the 
above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If 
you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the 
same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- 
I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think 
for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. 
In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement 
works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, 
but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same 
thing. I would change this sentence to say: There 
is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we 
should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 
14:4. But, that's me. John.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!




..soundin' better and 
better:)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:15:23 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I 
  may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if 
  we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different 
  words), we may as well not converse.
  
-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Good News!
[Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. 
The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately 
believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they 
didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly 
don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the 
canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem 
to be saying quite differentthings at times even when our utterances 
fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use 
sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary 
direction to move in.

Unity presupposes diversity. A group ofn identical 
things can never be a unit;it will always be a group 
ofn units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged 
like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one 
thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does 
the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it 
talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is 
how we experience, see, and say things.And part of faith is trusting 
God for one another, and relinquishing the need to"match" for 
security.


  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
      [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  John wrote:Huh??? We will never have 
unity basedupon "all saying the same thing "I don't 
disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating 
your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say 
the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots 
that parrot each other. There is still room for us to 
emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each 
other as speaking the same thing.I do not 
  believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is 
  omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that 
  illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk 
  alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an 
  identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is 
  only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case 
  of some form of religious popery. In a practical 
  sense, I have no idea how this statement works: 
  There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing 
  so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. 
  I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us 
  to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each 
  other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, 
  that's me. John.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

In a message dated 1/16/2005 8:58:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John, please do not overlook what I wrote in a previous post, which was:

Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the
parts I have emphasized. Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we
all say the same thing?

1 Corinthians 1:10
(10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but
that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME
JUDGMENT.

Well, ok David. But I am hoping that you will go and do likewise with my previous posting.

I believe the biblical writer often wrote in absolutes for the sake of emphasis. I do the same as a parent "I want this room cleaned and I don't want to see it this way again." The fact is, the room will need to be revisited and Paul's advice, the only advice he could give under the circumstances, will not be fully complied with -- and I suggest that he knows this. That is why he wrote Romans 14, David. He knows there will be differences of opinion on matters of faith. Romans 14 is how one deals with those difference -- something that is not fully known (apparently) here on TT. At any rate -- the fact that we have Romans 14 , combined with the fact that we have no evidence that this advice was fully complied with is my "commentary." Add to Romans 14, I Cor 13:4ff.

I give the same advice to troubled marrieds. strive to become one AND this is how you handle yourselves when this is not going to happen.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:04:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

this has a distinctly evangelical ring to it in a cultic environment

Light shinning in the darkness?

RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!

2005-01-16 Thread Debbie Sawczak




Sorry 
to go on, but I feel the need to clarify just a tad more. I don't mean to imply 
that I naively assume we all have the same big picture and all essentially 
agree. I mean that we may have to do a lot more listening, 
perspective-adjusting, weighing, and risking in order to recognize those 
occasions when we do agreedespite oursaying what appear to be quite 
different things.

  -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:15 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!
  I 
  may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if 
  we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different 
  words), we may as well not converse.
  
-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Good News!
[Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. 
The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately 
believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they 
didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly 
don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the 
canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem 
to be saying quite differentthings at times even when our utterances 
fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use 
sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary 
direction to move in.

Unity presupposes diversity. A group ofn identical 
things can never be a unit;it will always be a group 
ofn units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged 
like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one 
thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does 
the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it 
talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is 
how we experience, see, and say things.And part of faith is trusting 
God for one another, and relinquishing the need to"match" for 
security.


  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  John wrote:Huh??? We will never have 
unity basedupon "all saying the same thing "I don't 
disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating 
your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say 
the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots 
that parrot each other. There is still room for us to 
emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each 
other as speaking the same thing.I do not 
  believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is 
  omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that 
  illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk 
  alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an 
  identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is 
  only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case 
  of some form of religious popery. In a practical 
  sense, I have no idea how this statement works: 
  There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing 
  so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. 
  I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us 
  to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each 
  other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, 
  that's me. John.

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!

In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:04:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we may as well not converse.


Amen to this. Let's see -- I truly think several on this site would be excellent spokesmen for the truth. We could select one. He/she would write and we could simply respond with "amen." No ad honominiomums, no ranker, no disagreement, no disuity, no nothin'. 

I's exceited. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!