subject:"RE\: \[TruthTalk\] Traditional Christian theology"

In a message dated 1/18/2005 4:06:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

To call that ad hominem is straining at gnats IMO. She did not call him any ugly names. She is criticizing a theology not a person. Izzy (Since you asked.)



So, if I said that her theology was thoughtless, without practical consequence and stupid, that would not be ad hominem? Tha leaves open a whole host of negatives. Awesome. This squeal without the pig thingy may work after all -- that is if you don't give a care about the person you criticize. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread Judy Taylor






On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about just discussing the validity of the 
teaching in question? 
You can't do that without insulting the 
person or the teaching itself? 

jt: Why not? We should be able 
to be Berean here which is to compare different teachings alongside the Word of 
God
How does one insult 
a teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be 
brought to the light. If a person holding on
to it as truth is insulted then they 
are holding on too tightly and it is a chance to let go. Onlytruth 
will stand in that day.

I count only four contributors on this forum 
who apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors -- 
obviously it can be done.And you don't overlook anything considered 
negative. Nothing. John 

jt: Comply with what John? Is 
there some kind of rule book I don't know about? jt


  In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:10:53 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
  It is my opinion - that this 
  moderation thing is getting too oppressive. When it becomes impossible 
  to dialogue with another person withoutconstant nit picking about ad 
  hominems then communicating becomes more of a burden than a joy.. Is it 
  really necessary? There was no question about ad hominem when G accused 
  me of writing on an 8th grade level. which is both personal and unflattering 
  along with the ongoing cult and myth accusations...Is my referring to Lance's 
  incarnation doctrine one time worse than all that? Hey! I can overlook 
  some things - in fact I would rather overlook things myself than live with 
  this constant scrutiny. Could we save it for crisis 
  situations?

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Why not? We should be able to be Berean here which is to compare different teachings alongside the Word of God
 How does one insult a teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be brought to the light. If a person holding on
 to it as truth is insulted then they are holding on too tightly and it is a chance to let go. Only truth will stand in that day.
 
I count only four contributors on this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors -- obviously it can be done.
And you don't overlook anything considered negative. Nothing. John 
 
jt: Comply with what John? Is there some kind of rule book I don't know about? jt
 


So, no problem with calling your teachings stupid? Did you somehow overlook the purpose of my post. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread Judy Taylor






On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:20:12 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't have any "teachings" that are my 
  own John; my goal is toagree with the "Teacher" so I 
  can
  receive and walk in His 
  doctrine with those who are likeminded. So if you call that "stupid" then that 
  is 
  between you and the Lord. I wouldn't take it as a 
  personal insult but maybe grieved in my spirit over
  such ignorance andthis would not be conducive to any kind 
  of fellowship between us. jt
  
  On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:05:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  So, no problem with calling your teachings 
  stupid? Did you somehow overlook the purpose of my post. 
  John 
  
  In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Why 
  not? We should be able to be Berean here which is to compare different 
  teachings alongside the Word of GodHow does one insult a 
  teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be brought to the 
  light. If a person holding onto it as truth is insulted then they are holding on too tightly 
  and it is a chance to let go. Only truth will stand in that 
  day. I count 
  only four contributors on this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out 
  of 14 contributors -- obviously it can be done.And you 
  don't overlook anything considered negative. Nothing. 
  John jt: Comply 
  with what John? Is there some kind of rule book I don't know 
  about? jt

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-19 Thread ShieldsFamily









Could be one and the same; maybe not. Just
seems where theres symbolism (dragon), there could be more. Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005
6:05 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology







I don't think so, but it's okay if you do.
I think it's literally stars from the sky, not angels. Continue reading to
verse 9...when the Dragon (Satan) is hurled down with his angels.











Kay























-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005
23.16
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology





Hint: Stars =
Angels? 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
7:24 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology







I said literally STARS.











Who/what is the Dragon/snakehint:
serpent.











Kay





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005
09.39
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology







Thought you all might find this
interesting...I like to go to literal, word for word translations. I have found
it helps alot...





Quotedfrom The Orthodox Jewish Brit
Chadasha:











Hisgalus (The Revelation) Perek Yod Beit
(Chapter 12) v. 4











And the tail of him drags down a third of
the kokhavim (stars) of Shomayim (heaven) and threw them to ha'aretz (the
earth), and the Dragon NACHASH (snake) was standing before the ISHA (woman) who
was about to give birth, that when she gives birth to the YELED (Child)











Seems to me it's literally stars that are
thrown down from heaven.





Kay



By a
literal dragon/snake? I think not. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread ShieldsFamily











In a message dated 1/18/2005 4:06:55 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




To call that ad hominem
is straining at gnats IMO. She did not call him any ugly names. She
is criticizing a theology not a person. Izzy (Since you asked.)



So, if I said that her theology was thoughtless, without practical consequence
and stupid, that would not be ad hominem? Tha leaves open a whole
host of negatives. Awesome. This squeal without the pig
thingy may work after all -- that is if you don't give
a care about the person you criticize.
John



You can carry anything to the extreme,
JD. (Especially you!) J Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




myth (they're all your 
ownacc toyour own falsifications)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:20:12 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't have any "teachings" of my own 
  
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




that's the seventh 
spirituallife of the cat (seven is the perfect 
number)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:36 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ||
  [the]squeal without the pig thingy may work after 
  all -- that is if you don't give a care about the 
  person you criticize.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




a math wiz, 
eh:)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ||
  ..I count only four contributors on this forum who 
  apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors..
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 4:57:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



a math wiz, eh:)
 
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
||
 .. I count only four contributors on this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors..



Alright!! I've always wanted to be one and now, apparently, I are. Didn't know it was this easy. 

By the way, Gman -- you can myth me anytime. I can take it. Room for growth, I always say or in other words, I could be wrong, but probably not. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




a myth wiz, too, 
eh?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:09:34 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 1/19/2005 4:57:53 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  a math wiz, eh:) On Wed, 19 
Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
||.. I count only four contributors on this forum who 
  apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 
  contributors..Alright!! 
  I've always wanted to be one and now, apparently, I are. Didn't 
  know it was this easy. By the way, Gman 
  -- you can myth me anytime. I can take 
  it. Room for growth, I always say or in other words, I 
  could be wrong, but probably not. JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:15:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

a myth wiz, too, eh?


oh, you betcha !! I do much better with criticism from friends than enemies.
J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:45:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

don't have any "teachings" that are my own John; my goal is to agree with the "Teacher" so I can
 receive and walk in His doctrine with those who are likeminded. So if you call that "stupid" then that is 
between you and the Lord. I wouldn't take it as a personal insult but may be grieved in my spirit over
 such ignorance and this would not be conducive to any kind of fellowship between us. jt
 


What in the hell are you talking about? Don't make up stuff and then trash talk your own fantasy That is stupid. Absolutely nothing in the above has anything to do with what I wrote. I was asking a question about ad hominem -- but, of course, since you don't bother to actually read my post, I can see how you get confused. In fact, Judy -- just ignore my posts altoghether. I will go and do likewise.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread Judy Taylor




jt: No John, apparently I don't have a clue what you 
were talking about but no point in being the 
voice
of the accuser and getting your knickers in a knot. 

Why not explain the interaction below to me in a 
patient and lucid manner as a pastor, bishop, beloved 

etc. or even a normal vanilla Christian might do 
because you are beginning to sound like 'G' 
with all
this 'fantasy' talk. jt


On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:22:33 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What in the hell are you talking 
about? Don't make up stuff and then trash talk 
your own fantasy That is stupid.
Absolutely nothing in the above has anything 
to do with what I wrote. I was asking a question about ad 
hominem -- 
but, of course, since you don't 
bother to actually read my post, I can see how you get 
confused. In fact, Judy -- 
just ignore my posts altoghether. I 
will go and do likewise.
_

  In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:45:32 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I don't have 
  any "teachings" of my own John; my goal is toagree with the "Teacher" 
  and receive
  
  and walk in His doctrine. If you call that "stupid" 
  then that is between you and the Lord. I would try
  not to take it to heart but it would not be conducive 
  to any kind of fellowship because you would
  have broken the royal law.
  
  On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:05:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  So, no problem with 
  calling your teachings stupid? Did you somehow overlook the purpose of my post. John 
  
  
  In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Why not? We should be able 
  to be Berean here which is to compare different teachings alongside the Word 
  of GodHow does one insult 
  a teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be brought 
  to the light. If a person holding onto it as truth is insulted then 
  they are holding on too tightly and it is a chance to let go. Only truth 
  will stand in that day. I count only four contributors on 
  this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out 
  of 14 contributors -- obviously it can be done.And you 
  don't overlook anything considered negative. Nothing. 
  John jt: Comply 
  with what John? Is there some kind of rule book I don't know 
  about? jt

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




Hearsay, hearsay, hearsay beware!!

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:51:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:19:08 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  yet the theory of it you 
embrac/d, publically, is Wesley's view On 
Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:11:44 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
I enjoy God's Word ..This is Judy's way of saying "yes" G. 
  J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




We don't want this fear cast out, this is the only kind 
of fear that is acceptable with
God. It is the kind that brings blessing rather than 
torment. Perfect love casts out the
kind of fear that is accompanied by torment. All kinds 
of phobias, nightmares etc.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:50:36 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:14:00 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I enjoy God's Word - and learning the fear of the Lord is 
  profitable all around:The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life Prov 
  14:27The fear of the Lord is 
  the beginning of wisdom Prov 9:10The fear of the Lord will prolong your days Prov 
  10:27The fear of the Lord is 
  to hate evil Prov 8:13 (so one can speak as the oracles of God)A good starting point. But don't leave out 
  "mature love casts out fear."J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




John, some people are able to separate themselves. From 
what I understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh body and he 

has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest 
of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is this 
some kind 
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings 
  have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. Here is 
  the question and we can start the discussion from this:David 
  Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any 
  degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right but 
  not taking the time or energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, 
  angry words, adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced 
  in the Message); sins of the character (pride, selfishness, 
  conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful 
  act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will be sufficient at this 
  stage. Let's not speak of temptation, shall 
  we. Temptation is not sin, as we all 
  know. Such is a good topic for future discussion, but 
  not now. my answer is "yes." My answer for all on 
  this forum is "yes." What about you, David? Yes 
  nor no. Jack D SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




Jt says: 'from what I understand David to say' As 
everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is not the 
difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by uttering 'from 
what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be incorrect. I'd posit a 
couple of thoughts on this and, related matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version 
of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what I understand of the text before 
me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer John's 
question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this discussion some 
time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.

4. David just might consider his approximation of 
an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he 
consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by inference, 
saying the same thing of every believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2005 06:27
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  
  John, some people are able to separate themselves. 
  From what I understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh body 
  and he 
  has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest 
  of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is 
  this some kind 
  of public humiliation?
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings 
have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. Here 
is the question and we can start the discussion from this:David 
Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any 
degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right 
but not taking the time or energy to do it); event sins (such as 
murder, angry words, adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually 
referenced in the Message); sins of the character (pride, 
selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from 
a deceitful act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will 
be sufficient at this stage. Let's not speak of 
temptation, shall we. Temptation is 
not sin, as we all know. Such is a good topic for 
future discussion, but not now. my answer is 
"yes." My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What 
about you, David? Yes nor no. Jack D 
SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




Thank you for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what I 
understand" in this instance because I am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may not see 
things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing 
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a right and 
a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not "subjective" - 


Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the most 
wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" - Is this 
just a play onwords? Was he telling them to do 
something that was impossible? If the Corinthians were able to do this don't you 
believe it is in the realm of possibility for David Miller? You are wrong 
about every believer consciously and actively sinning daily in thought, word, 
and deed; if this is what is going on then these people (even those who profess 
to be following Christ) are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. 
jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Jt says: 'from what I understand David to say' As 
  everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is not the 
  difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by uttering 
  'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be incorrect. I'd 
  posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related matters:
  
  1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what I 
  understand of the text before me'
  
  2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
  provisional.
  
  3. David himself may not know how to answer 
  John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this 
  discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.
  
  4. David just might consider his approximation of 
  an answer the 'way of humility'.
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
  deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every 
  believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
  

From: 
    Judy 
Taylor 

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate themselves. 
From what I understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh 
body and he 
has the same opportunity to sin every day as the 
rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? 
Is this some kind 
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings 
  have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. 
  Here is the question and we can start the discussion from 
  this:David Miller,. do you have sin in 
  your life to any degree? Consider sins of omission 
  (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do it); 
  event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery  this is the 
  "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message); sins of the 
  character (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, 
  deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the 
  like). A simply 
  one word answer will be sufficient at this stage. 
  Let's not speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all 
  know. Such is a good topic for future discussion, 
  but not now. my answer is "yes." My answer for 
  all on this forum is "yes." What about you, 
  David? Yes nor no. Jack D 
  SmithsonThe Webbmeister

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology






  Thought you all might find this interesting...I like to go to literal, 
  word for word translations. I have found it helps alot...
  Quotedfrom The Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha:
  
  Hisgalus (The Revelation) Perek Yod Beit (Chapter 12) v. 
  4
  
  And 
  the tail of him drags down a third of the kokhavim (stars) of Shomayim 
  (heaven) and threw them to ha'aretz (the earth), and the Dragon NACHASH 
  (snake) was standing before the ISHA (woman) who was about to give birth, that 
  when she gives birth to the YELED (Child)
  
  
  Seems to me it's literally stars that are thrown down from 
  heaven.
  
  Kay

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm of
possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be that the
text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in possession of an
'objective truth' that eludes me.

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: January 18, 2005 07:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Thank you for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what
I understand" in this instance because I am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may not
see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a right
and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not "subjective" -

Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the most
wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" - Is
this just a play onwords? Was he telling them
to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians were able to do this
don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility for David Miller?
You are wrong about every believer consciously and actively sinning daily in
thought, word, and deed; if this is what is going on then these people (even
those who profess to be following Christ) are deceived ppl who are walking in
unbelief. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Jt says: 'from what I understand David to say'
As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is not the
difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by uttering
'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be incorrect.
I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what
I understand of the text before me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer
John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this
discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.

4. David just might consider his approximation
of an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and
deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

From:
Judy
Taylor

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate
themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets around
in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as the
rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting
him? Is this some kind
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his
postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except
Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discussion
from this:David Miller,. do you have
sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of
omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do
it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery
this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message);
sins of the character (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy,
laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act],
arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will be sufficient at
this stage. Let's not speak of temptation,
shall we. Temptation is not sin,
as we all know. Such is a good topic for future
discussion, but not now. my answer is "yes."
My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What about you,
David? Yes nor no. Jack D
SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a 
time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while 
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the 
power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free 
from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for 
sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to be 
walked in. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm of 
  possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be that the 
  text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in possession of an 
  'objective truth' that eludes me.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
Thank you for those 
thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I am 
dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may not 
see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing 
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a right 
and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not "subjective" - 


Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the 
most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" 
- Is this just a play onwords? Was he 
telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians were 
able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility for 
David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously and 
actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is going 
on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ) are 
deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Jt says: 'from what I understand David to 
  say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is 
  not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by 
  uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be 
  incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related 
  matters:
  
  1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from 
  what I understand of the text before me'
  
  2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
  provisional.
  
  3. David himself may not know how to answer 
  John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this 
  discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.
  
  4. David just might consider his 
  approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
  deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every 
  believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
  

From: 
    Judy 
    Taylor 
    
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate 
themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets 
around in a flesh body and he 
has the same opportunity to sin every day as 
the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting 
him? Is this some kind 
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his 
  postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except 
  Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discussion 
  from this:David Miller,. do you have 
  sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of 
  omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do 
  it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery 
   this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the 
  Message); sins of the character (pride, selfishness, 
  conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a 
  deceitful act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer 
  will be sufficient at this stage. Let's not 
  speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all 
  know. Such is a good topic for future 
  discussion, but not now. my answer is "yes." 
  My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What about you, 
  David? Yes nor no. Jack D 
  SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

A couple of questions for the purpose of
clarification, please:

1. What does the _expression_ 'cosmic incarnation'
mean? If you don't know then, why use it?

2. As we 'speak', do you consider yourself to be
completely free of sin in thought, word and deed?

3a. I think you make a good point with respect to
'resurrection power' but, I'd rather speak of the ongoing mediatorial work of
the ascended Christ via the book of Hebrews.However, does either of these provide the REALITY as opposed to the
POSSIBILITY of living a life ENTIRELY FREE OF SIN IN THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED?

3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this
in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.

thanks,

Lance

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: January 18, 2005 07:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a
time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the
power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free
from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for
sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to
be walked in. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm
of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be
that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in
possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me.

From: Judy Taylor
Thank you for those
thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I
am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may
not see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a
right and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not
"subjective" -

Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the
most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin
not" - Is this just a play onwords? Was
he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians
were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility
for David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously and
actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is
going on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ)
are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Jt says: 'from what I understand David to
say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is
not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by
uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be
incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related
matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from
what I understand of the text before me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer
John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this
discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same
outcome.

4. David just might consider his
approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then,
he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought,
word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

From:
Judy Taylor

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate
themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets
around in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as
the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting
him? Is this some kind
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his
postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except
Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discu

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Lance wrote:
 IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, 
 actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

Then I guess I am not one of you.

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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything









That is the point in contentionis it
not? Izzy





















5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the
same thing of every believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology















Thought you all might find this
interesting...I like to go to literal, word for word translations. I have found
it helps alot...





Quotedfrom The Orthodox Jewish Brit
Chadasha:











Hisgalus (The Revelation) Perek Yod Beit
(Chapter 12) v. 4











And the tail of him drags down a third of
the kokhavim (stars) of Shomayim (heaven) and threw them to ha'aretz (the earth),
and the Dragon NACHASH (snake) was standing before the ISHA (woman) who was
about to give birth, that when she gives birth to the YELED (Child)











Seems to me it's literally stars that are
thrown down from heaven.





Kay



By a
literal dragon/snake? I think not. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology









I
enjoy God's Word - and learning the fear of the Lord is profitable all around:
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life Prov 14:27
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Prov 9:10
The fear of the Lord will prolong your days Prov 10:27
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil Prov 8:13 (so one can
speak as the oracles of God) 



A good starting point. But don't leave out mature love casts
out fear.



J



John, are you saying that you think a mature
Believer does not fear God in the Biblical sense? I believe that we all either
walk in the fear of God OR in the fear of Man. The former leads to
righteousness; the latter leads to sin. How do you see it? Izzy



Prov 29:25 The fear of man
brings a snare,But
he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted. 





Deut 6:13 
You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear
by His name.
-

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Close but no cigar! However, if there were a 'cigar' you would be 'one of
us' would you?

IFF you understand David's meaning (I don't) please let us mortals if your
life experience (sinlessness, I think) is identical to his.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything

 Lance wrote:
  IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
  actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

 Then I guess I am not one of you.

 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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything









J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Miller



Lance wrote:

 IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, 

 actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.



Then I guess I am not one of you.



Peace be with you.

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Terry Clifton

Lance Muir wrote:
Close but no cigar! However, if there were a 'cigar' you would be 'one of
us' would you?
IFF you understand David's meaning (I don't) please let us mortals if your
life experience (sinlessness, I think) is identical to his.
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything

Lance wrote:

IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

Then I guess I am not one of you.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.

==
We could all chip in and hire someone to follow David around until they 
catch him sinning, but if he doesn't sin then we might all go broke.
Probably better (and cheaper) to take him at his word .  Taking him at 
his word costs nothing.
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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything









==

We could all chip in and hire someone to follow David around until they


catch him sinning, but if he doesn't sin then we might all go broke.

Probably better (and cheaper) to take him at his word . Taking him at 

his word costs nothing.

Terry



--

Terry, you are a perfect example of the
pure wisdom of the Spirit. J Izzy

(PS Which is the opposite of the wisdom of
the world.)

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

So, you also read David as claiming sinlessness in word, deed and thought?

That being the case, you make a good point, Terry.

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 08:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything

 Lance Muir wrote:

 Close but no cigar! However, if there were a 'cigar' you would be 'one of
 us' would you?

 IFF you understand David's meaning (I don't) please let us mortals if
your
 life experience (sinlessness, I think) is identical to his.

 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
 anything

 Lance wrote:

 IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
 actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

 Then I guess I am not one of you.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 ==
 We could all chip in and hire someone to follow David around until they
 catch him sinning, but if he doesn't sin then we might all go broke.
 Probably better (and cheaper) to take him at his word .  Taking him at
 his word costs nothing.
 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.

--
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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

If you think I want David to make clear what is clear to me -- well, then, call it any of your favorite little names. Either he believes that he is a sinner [with current sin problems as opposed to temptation problems] or he doesn't. Since you are the one who challenged this (my assertion that David claims a sinlessness because of the HG's influence in his life) , since David's response is a confusing one (at best thought), I have asked the question below. Do I bait sameone to tell the truth? Come on, Judy -- get a grip. Of course I do. We are to be fishers of men and I am, the Chief Baiter.

Whew !

In a message dated 1/18/2005 3:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John, some people are able to separate themselves. From what I understand David to say he still gets around in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is this some kind
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy.
Here is the question and we can start the discussion from this:

David Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message); sins of the character (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will be sufficient at this stage.

Let's not speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all know. Such is a good topic for future discussion, but not now.

my answer is "yes." My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What about you, David? Yes nor no.

Jack D Smithson
The Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:02:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to be walked in. jt

Actually, a profound summerary of what I believe. Glad to have you aboard, Judy.

John -- The Communal Voice Crying in the Wildernes

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John wrote:
 I don't like it when I am talking about one
 thing sin and you speak of soemthing
 entirely different   temptation.   I do not
 like that at all.

Sorry, John.  Some misunderstanding here.  In this particular context, I 
interpret battle with sin as being the struggle one experiences when they 
are tempted to sin.  A battle can be either won or lost.

Do you understand battle with sin as being the same thing as sinning?

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] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/18/2005 6:47:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



John, are you saying that you think a mature Believer does not fear God in the Biblical sense? I believe that we all either walk in the fear of God OR in the fear of Man. The former leads to righteousness; the latter leads to sin. How do you see it? Izzy



I do no fear God. I AM saved. See the connections?

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:04:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sorry, John. Some misunderstanding here. In this particular context, I 
interpret "battle with sin" as being the struggle one experiences when they 
are tempted to sin. A battle can be either won or lost.

Do you understand "battle with sin" as being the same thing as "sinning"?


Did you not take into account the context of MY question? Incredible. You know full well what our discussion was about. To change in the face of a difficult question is not something I will go along with. I have stated, once again, my question just a few minutes ago. When that post appears, please refer to it. 

Thanks

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.


Yes. That is all I am getting at. I thought it was clear until David sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in clear statement, what he actually taught in that very post. It is clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues (as opposed to temptation matters). Correct me if I am wrong. He sees the work of the Spirit as opposed to sin in much the same way as one end of a magnet is opposed to the other (that's why it is at the other end, of course --- tell me I am not a scientist !) With the Spirit in his life -- sin MUST be repelled. So, there is no sin. His problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology (solely, a term of my creation and, yes, I am proud). When one is going through the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters come to life. 

Doctor J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-18 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/18/2005 6:47:22 AM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  

John,
are you saying that you think a mature Believer does not fear God in
the Biblical sense? I believe that we all either walk in the fear of
God OR in the fear of Man. The former leads to righteousness; the
latter leads to sin. How do you see it? Izzy


  
  
I do no fear God. I AM saved. See the connections?
  
JD
===
Do you ever fear that you will disappoint him? Do you ever fear that
you could do something to incur His wrath? I do.
Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




Hahaha...I found that funny.
Actually, I've heard of the "Sinless Doctrine"from C. Barr and Daniel 
Lee.

Run, 
JohnRUN!

K

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 
  11.09To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
  anythingIn a message dated 1/18/2005 
  5:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your life 
then, please say so without ambiguity.Yes. That is all 
  I am getting at. I thought it was clear until David 
  sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in clear 
  statement, what he actually taught in that very post. It is 
  clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues (as opposed to temptation 
  matters). Correct me if I am wrong. He sees the work of the 
  Spirit as opposed to sin in much the same way as one end of a magnet is 
  opposed to the other (that's why it is at the other end, of course 
  --- tell me I am not a scientist !) With the Spirit in 
  his life -- sin MUST be repelled. So, there is 
  no sin. His problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology 
  (solely, a term of my creation and, yes, I am proud). When 
  one is going through the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters 
  come to life. Doctor 
J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:54:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I do no fear God. I AM saved. See the connections?

JD
===

 Do you ever fear that you will disappoint him? Do you ever fear that you could do 
something to incur His wrath? I do.
Terry


Yes - daily, but that is more "concern" than "fear." 

No -- I stand in the continual flow; such is impossible. 

Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




David:Following your reply to my question as 
follows:"LOL Lance, my source is Scripture!" Are these (ones) the source of your 
belief? If not then, from whom did you first hear this?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Slade 
  Henson 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2005 11:58
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  
  Hahaha...I found that funny.
  Actually, I've heard of the "Sinless Doctrine"from C. Barr and 
  Daniel Lee.
  
  Run, 
  JohnRUN!
  
  K
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 
18 January, 2005 11.09To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
anythingIn a message dated 
1/18/2005 5:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your 
  life then, please say so without ambiguity.Yes. That is 
all I am getting at. I thought it was clear until 
David sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in 
clear statement, what he actually taught in that very 
post. It is clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues 
(as opposed to temptation matters). Correct me if I am 
wrong. He sees the work of the Spirit as opposed to sin in much 
the same way as one end of a magnet is opposed to the other (that's why it 
is at the other end, of course --- tell me I am not a 
scientist !) With the Spirit in his life -- sin MUST be 
repelled. So, there is no sin. His 
problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology (solely, a term of my 
creation and, yes, I am proud). When one is going through 
the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters come to 
life. Doctor J

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology











John,
are you saying that you think a mature Believer does not fear God in the
Biblical sense? I believe that we all either walk in the fear of God OR in the
fear of Man.
The former leads to righteousness; the latter leads to sin. How do you
see it? Izzy



I do no fear God. I AM saved. See the connections?JD



No I dont see the connections, as there
are none. The saved DO fear God. Im afraid we have a different definition of
fearing God. I believe it means seeing ourselves through Gods eyes with
the desire to please Him. Versus constantly measuring ourselves against other
humans, which leads to vanity and sin. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-18 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:54:24 AM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
I
do no fear God. I AM saved. See the connections?
  
JD

===
  
  
  
Do you ever fear that you will disappoint him? Do you ever fear that
you could do 
  
  something
to incur His wrath? I do.
Terry

  
  
Yes - daily, but that is more "concern" than "fear." 
  
No -- I stand in the continual flow; such is impossible. 
  
Jd

You say that you sin every day. The Bible says that God is angry with
the sinner every day. No fear? Is that prudent?

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything





On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:15:06 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  A couple of questions for the purpose of 
  clarification, please:
  
  1. What does the _expression_ 'cosmic incarnation' 
  mean? If you don't know then, why use it?
  
  jt: Why ask the question if you 
  already believe you have it figured out Lance?
  
  2. As we 'speak', do you consider yourself to be 
  completely free of sin in thought, word and deed?
  
  jt: I am not walking in any known 
  sin as we speak..
  
  3a. I think you make a good point with respect to 
  'resurrection power' but, I'd rather speak of the ongoing mediatorial work of 
  the ascended Christ via the book of Hebrews.However, does either of these provide the REALITY as opposed to the 
  POSSIBILITY of living a life ENTIRELY FREE OF SIN IN THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED? 
  
  
  jt: Yes it is possible to live a 
  sanctified life and to stand before Him without shame when he 
  returns.
  
  3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to 
  this in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.
  
  jt: What do you mean ambiguity? I 
  don't make it a secret that I believe sanctification is a second work of grace 
  and from what
  I read I believe DavidM just 
  might be talking about the same..People seem 
  to get it in their head for some reason that I follow
  John Wesley and to tell you the 
  truth I don't really know what he believed about holiness.
  
  thanks,
  
  Lance
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 18, 2005 07:59
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
    Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in 
a time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation 
while DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It 
is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to 
be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence 
for sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that 
needs to be walked in. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm 
  of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be 
  that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in 
  possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
Thank you for those 
thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because 
I am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may 
not see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a 
thing as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a 
right and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not 
"subjective" - 

Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the 
most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin 
not" - Is this just a play onwords? Was 
he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians 
were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility 
for David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously 
and actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what 
is going on then these people (even those who profess to be following 
Christ) are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. 
jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Jt says: 'from what I understand David to 
  say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this 
  is not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to 
  qualify by uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you 
  just might be incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, 
  related matters:
  
  1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from 
  what I understand of the text before me'
  
  2. All speaking of anything is partial 
  and provisional.
  
  3. David himself may not know how to 
  answer John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did 
  have this discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same 
  outcome.
  
  4. David just might consider his 
  approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, 
  he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, 
  word and deed. I am, by infer

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Jeff Powers

Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless?
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
anything


Lance wrote:
IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.
Then I guess I am not one of you.
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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Jeff Powers




In my younger days we called it "Tripping"! 

Those delusians are not real, they are filiments of your 
imagination. 
Thank G-d Dr. J is on the case!
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: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 
  11:09
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:20:10 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your life 
then, please say so without ambiguity.Yes. That is all 
  I am getting at. I thought it was clear until David 
  sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in clear 
  statement, what he actually taught in that very post. It is 
  clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues (as opposed to temptation 
  matters). Correct me if I am wrong. He sees the work of the 
  Spirit as opposed to sin in much the same way as one end of a magnet is 
  opposed to the other (that's why it is at the other end, of course 
  --- tell me I am not a scientist !) With the Spirit in 
  his life -- sin MUST be repelled. So, there is 
  no sin. His problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology 
  (solely, a term of my creation and, yes, I am proud). When 
  one is going through the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters 
  come to life. Doctor 
J

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




Is 
this considered an ad hominem? "My belief is thatyou are in a time warp, stuck in your 
cosmic incarnation while DavidM, myself and others 
have moved on to the resurrection" Or do we allow the lawyers say, "it is 
not an ad hominem because Judy used the term "My belief is?"


-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 08.00To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a 
  time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while 
  DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the 
  power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free 
  from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for 
  sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to 
  be walked in. jt
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm 
of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be 
that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in 
possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me.

  From: Judy Taylor 
  Thank you for those 
  thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I 
  am dealing with ppl
  in different stages of spiritual growth who may 
  not see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing 
  as
  objective truth. I do believe that there is a 
  right and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not 
  "subjective" - 
  
  Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the 
  most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin 
  not" - Is this just a play onwords? Was 
  he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians 
  were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility 
  for David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously and 
  actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is 
  going on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ) 
  are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. jt
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Jt says: 'from what I understand David to 
say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is 
not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by 
uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be 
incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related 
matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from 
what I understand of the text before me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer 
John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this 
discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same 
outcome.

4. David just might consider his 
approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, 
he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, 
word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every 
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

      
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
      
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  
  John, some people are able to separate 
  themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets 
  around in a flesh body and he 
  has the same opportunity to sin every day as 
  the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting 
  him? Is this some kind 
  of public humiliation?
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his 
postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except 
Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discussion 
from this:David Miller,. do you 
have sin in your life to any degree? Consider 
sins of omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or 
energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, angry 
words, adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually 
refere

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread ttxpress




there's a post or twoin 
play alludg to at least two categories of wisdom..perhaps a semineognostic force 
is at work in a virtualcult environment?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..[re: certain ppl] in possession of 
  an 'objective truth' that eludes [him].
  
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread ttxpress




myth [the NT res is not a 
culticevnt; everyone will re resurrectd inc Lance:)]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:59:37 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the 
  resurrection.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Jeff wrote:
 Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless?

No.  It means that I do not consciously, actively, sin daily in thought, 
word and deed.

On second thought, define sinless.

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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Slade wrote:
 Is this considered an ad hominem? My
 belief is that you are in a time warp, stuck
 in your cosmic incarnation while DavidM,
 myself and others have moved on to the
 resurrection Or do we allow the lawyers
 say, it is not an ad hominem because Judy
 used the term My belief is?

This is kind of in the gray area.  It makes a point, but it is getting a 
little personal.  I tend to let something like this slide, but it depends on 
how the person being spoken to might react.  Lance is not likely to knee 
jerk react to it, but someone else might.

Judy, you can try to be a little less personal.  Try to stick with the 
subject matter and leave personal characterizations out of the dialogue. 
Thanks.

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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything





Itis my opinion - that this moderation thing is 
getting too oppressive. When it becomes impossible to dialogue with 
another personwithout
constant nit picking about ad hominems then communicating becomes 
more of a burden than a joy.. Is it really necessary? There was no 
question about ad hominem whenG accused me of writing on an 8th grade 
level. which is both personal and unflattering along with the ongoing cult and 
myth accusations...Is my referring to Lance's incarnation doctrine one time 
worse than all that? Hey! I can overlook some things - in factI 
would rather overlook things myselfthan live with thisconstant 
scrutiny. Could we saveit for crisis situations?




  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Slade 
  HensonIs this considered an 
  ad hominem? "My 
  belief is thatyou are in a time warp, stuck in your cosmic 
  incarnation while DavidM, myself and others have 
  moved on to the resurrection" Or do 
  we allow the lawyers say, "it is not an ad hominem because Judy used the term 
  "My belief 
  is?"-- 
  slade
  
  
FWIW 
Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a time warp, stuck in your 
cosmic incarnation 
while DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It 
is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to 
be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence 
for sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that 
needs to be walked in. jt



On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Jt asks:'don't you believe it 
  is in the realm of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it 
  could well be that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David 
  Miller are in possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes 
  me.
  

From: Judy 
Taylor 

Thank you 
for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this 
instance because I am dealing with ppl

in different stages 
of spiritual growth who may not see things as I see them. However, 
I do believe in such a thing as

objective truth. I 
do believe that there is a right and a wrong, a good and an evil. 
Everything is not "subjective" - 



Paul the apostle 
told the people at Corinth the most wicked city in the 
known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" - Is this just a 
play onwords? Was he telling them to do something that was 
impossible? If the Corinthians were able to do this don't you believe it 
is in the realm of possibility for David Miller? You are wrong 
about every believer consciously and actively sinning daily in thought, 
word, and deed; if this is what is going on then these people (even 
those who profess to be following Christ) are deceived ppl who are 
walking in unbelief. jt



On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Jt says: 'from what I 
  understand David to say' As everyone has access to what David has 
  'said', IMO this is not the difficulty that John has. Even you, 
  Judy, have had to qualify by uttering 'from what I understand' thus 
  indicating that you just might be incorrect. I'd posit a couple of 
  thoughts on this and, related 
  matters:
  
  
  
  1. Implicit in every 
  utterance is some version 
  of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what I 
  understand of the text before 
  me'
  
  
  
  2. All speaking of 
  anything is partial and 
provisional.
  
  
  
  3. David himself may not 
  know how to answer John's question with the sort of clarity John 
  wants. We did have this discussion some time ago with, as I recall, 
  the same outcome.
  
  
  
  4. David just might 
  consider his approximation of an answer the 'way of 
  humility'.
  
  
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one 
  of us' then, he consciously, 
  actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by 
  inference, saying the same thing of every believer/non-believer in the 
  cosmos.
  



From: 
Judy Taylor 
    
    
    
    
    Subject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

5. IMO, IFF David is 
'one of us' then, he 
consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of 
every believer/non-believer in the 
cosmos.

  
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
      
      
  
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
  anything
  
  
  
  John, 
  some people are able to separate themselves. From what I 
  understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh body 
  and he 
  
  has 
  the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest of us both 
  physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is 
  this some kind 
  
  of 
  public humiliation?
  
  
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 
  02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

I don't know why I 
have to choke this out of David, when his postings have been 
very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. 
Here is the question and we can start the discussion from 
this:David Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any 
degree? Consider sins of omission 
(knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do 
it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, 
adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in 
the Message); sins of the character (pride, 
selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness 
[different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the 
like). A simply one word answer will be 
sufficient at this stage. Let's not 
speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we 
all know. Such is a good topic 
for future discussion, but not now. my 
answer is "yes." My answer for all on this forum is 
"yes." What about you, David? Yes 
nor no. Jack D SmithsonThe 
Webbmeister

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




I said 
literally STARS.

Who/what is the Dragon/snakehint: serpent.

Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 
  09.39To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology
  
  
  

Thought you all 
might find this interesting...I like to go to literal, word for word 
translations. I have found it helps 
alot...

Quotedfrom 
The Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha:



Hisgalus (The 
Revelation) Perek Yod Beit (Chapter 12) v. 
4



And the tail of him 
drags down a third of the kokhavim (stars) of Shomayim (heaven) and threw 
them to ha'aretz (the earth), and the Dragon NACHASH (snake) was standing 
before the ISHA (woman) who was about to give birth, that when she gives 
birth to the YELED (Child)



Seems to me it's 
literally stars that are thrown down from 
heaven.

Kay

By 
a literal dragon/snake? I think not. 
Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Jeff Powers




How about as Torah obedient asone can 
possiblybe in 5765. I know I sin and I admit it,
just like nearly everyone else here.
Yet for most reading this thread, your answer (see 
below) places you above everyone else. I am
sure I'm not the only one who reads your answer to 
be that you claim to be sinless.
However, you tap-danced around John's direct question in 
a manner that allows you to answer
with a non-answer.
Lance wrote: IFF David is 'one of 
us' then, he consciously,  actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
deed.Then I guess I am not one of you.Peace be with 
you.David Miller.
Then you answer me with an attitude of superiority (I 
may be wrong but thats how I
read your answer) as if everyone but you 
"conciously, actively, sin..." Then ask me
to define sin? 
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: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 18:40
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology 
-- does sham mean anything
 Jeff 
wrote: Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless? 
 No. It means that I do not consciously, actively, sin daily in 
thought,  word and deed.  On second thought, define 
sinless.  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] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:03:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ad hominem? 
  
  
  the hair splitting 
  distinctionsyouresort toelicit serious critiques 
  ofyour sup/posed dichotomies in (e.g.) wisdom, sin, and 
  resurrection..mismanaged Bib languageyields cult lang/logic persuasive 
  forcertain'peasants' who'dbe reasong at '~8th gr 
  level'--that's not a critique of you; that ppl'd bepublically persuadd 
  to takeadvantage of them may be..
  
  jt: Just because 
  you don't understand what I'm about Gary is not necessarily a reflection on 
  me. Your mind appears to be elsewhere which is fine with 
  me.
  
  ftr, i requstd your 
  'hermeneutic'--you pointd me to the KJV per se which is to deny TT 
  any info abt your coalesced theory of its 
  interpretation
  
  jt: Just FTR Gary 
  I have no hermeneutic other than my Bible. Is that 
  OK?
  
  in synch with that you 
  publicallyban theologians and theology inquisitiv access to your mental 
  HoH, but you frequently employprivate theology rootd in undeclard 
  hermenueticagainst (e.g.) my critique/s of myth--e.g. Wesleys view of 
  sinless perf; in the 
  process you indicatd a bias toward Wesley's error which youavoidd owning 
  up to
  
  jt: Hey I don't publicly ban anything 
  - you can follow all the theologians you can find who impress you along 
  w/Calvin.
  
  it is no ad hominem to 
  call attention to suchprivatizd interpretation/s on a public 
  forum--participantsdon't seem to mind demythologizingideogical 
  associates engrossd in private vendettas..guys like KD are worth their weight 
  in gold
  
  jt: When that is 
  all you do Gary it becomes a bit of a bore.
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:06:42 -0500 Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

There 
was no question about ad hominem whenG accused me of writing on an 8th 
grade level. which is both personal and unflattering along with the ongoing 
cult and myth accusations...

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-18 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]


BLAINE:  Aah! At last, the facts!  Good Job!  Thank you mucho, DavidM!!
Taking the passage in context, however, I can still see why the KJV might have 
translated the word (espouranios) differently than in most other contexts.  
Paul does seem to be discssing governmental high places otherwise.  Maybe he 
was aware of the tendency of Romans to attribute divine powers and wisdom to 
those in government, and was alluding to this tendency.  Didn't some of the 
Roman Emporers consider themselves divine?  

-- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding Eph. 6:12, Blaine wrote:
 I differ in my interpretation of high places.
 It means people who occupy positions of high
 visibility, usually in government jobs, but could
 also be those in teaching, clerics, etc. who are
 able to influence others by setting the pace, or
 setting the example for others to follow.  A wicked
 king, like Saul, for instance, usually led Israel to do
 evil, as they watched his bad example.

The Greek word used there is epouranios.  Strong defines it as:

epouranios
ep-oo-ran'-ee-os
From G1909 and G3772; above the sky: - celestial, (in) heaven (-ly), high.

The KJV translates it 16 times as heavenly, 1 time as heaven, 2 times as 
celestial, and 1 time as high (in the passage we are talking about, Eph. 
6:12).

For example, the word is used in Mat. 18:35 to speak about the heavenly 
Father.  Also epouranious is used in John 3:12, when Jesus says, if I have 
told you of earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I 
tell you of heavenly things.  It also is used in 1 Cor. 15:49, as we have 
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the 
heavenly.  Heb. 12:22 speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, and you guessed it, 
this word, epouranios is translated heavenly there.  And there are many 
other passages that indicate that it speaks of the heavenly area.

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] Traditional Christian theology









Hint: Stars = Angels?












From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
7:24 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology







I said literally STARS.











Who/what is the Dragon/snakehint:
serpent.











Kay





-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005
09.39
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology







Thought you all might find this
interesting...I like to go to literal, word for word translations. I have found
it helps alot...





Quotedfrom The Orthodox Jewish Brit
Chadasha:











Hisgalus (The Revelation) Perek Yod Beit
(Chapter 12) v. 4











And the tail of him drags down a third of
the kokhavim (stars) of Shomayim (heaven) and threw them to ha'aretz (the
earth), and the Dragon NACHASH (snake) was standing before the ISHA (woman) who
was about to give birth, that when she gives birth to the YELED (Child)











Seems to me it's literally stars that are
thrown down from heaven.





Kay



By a
literal dragon/snake? I think not. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-17 Thread Lance Muir




Many will say 'I took a homeless guy home with me. 
I washed and, clothed him. I helped get him a place to live and a job' 


- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 16, 2005 23:01
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology
  
  John wrote:
   David, have you done everything 
  possible today, 
   for the service of the ministry. This 
  day, did you 
   pour yourself out for the 
  afflicted? Is there any 
   degree of selfishness or pride in your 
  life. 
   You you say that you lived your life exactly 
  as 
   God in Christ would have to do in every 
  respect. 
  We continually grow in 
  knowledge and understanding, but this does not mean that we are condemned at 
  sinners just because we have room to grow. When was the last time you 
  looked at a baby? Did you say, "what an evil child, so selfish, crying 
  too often, does nothing but eat, sleep, cry, eat, sleep, cry, every two 
  hours!" Most people look at a baby and say, "oh, how beautiful, how 
  perfect, how innocent." Why? It is because they see the 
  potential. They perceive the lack of motive to hurt others, the 
  innocency of not knowing how evil the world is around them, and they see 
  potential to grow in the right direction.
  
  In like manner, none of 
  us have arrived. None of us are in the full image of Christ, and none of 
  us alone will reflect the full image of Christ. Nevertheless, we can 
  reflect that part of him for which he has manifested his grace in 
  us.
  
  Suppose I pass a 
  homeless man on the street and he asks me for a quarter. So I reach in 
  my pocket and give him a dollar and go on my way. I'm busy. I 
  don't want to get involved in his life, but I do kind of care about him, so I 
  give him something that does not mean too much to me. Suppose you then 
  come across this same man, but instead of just giving him a buck, you take him 
  home with you. You feed him and give him a shower and some new 
  clothes. You take him out the next day and help him get a job. You 
  help him find an apartment and bring him to church with you several times a 
  week. Which of us loved the man better? Which of us was less 
  selfish. You would be the greater lover here. You would be the 
  least selfish of the two of us. But does that mean that I sinned because 
  I only gave the guy a buck? No. Emphatically NO! Think about 
  it.
  
  I have sometimes said to people, "my life may not be like Jesus Christ 
  when he was 32 years old and ministering to others without a place to lay his 
  head, but maybe, just maybe, his grace has worked within me so that I am like 
  Jesus Christ when he was 5years old." Now the analogy is not 
  perfect, but it makes a perfect point. The idea of Jesus being perfect 
  is not static one. The Scriptures teach that he grew in wisdom and 
  stature, and he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. Just 
  because we might not compare to his life in what we see in Scripture as he 
  ministered, this does not mean that Christ does not live in us and through 
  us. The way he lives in us and through us might be like that of an 
  earlier time of his life, and that as we mature in Him, we can expect our life 
  to more closely approach that which we read in the Scriptures. The only 
  caveat is that we will never look exactly like him in every way, but we can 
  look exactly like him in that part which the Spirit has chosen to impart to us 
  as individuals. We can perfectly represent one aspect of him, even 
  though as a lone individual we do not represent all of him. It is only 
  the entire local church that can represent all of him, in all of his 
  glory. This is why relationship and community isvery 
  important.
  
  Peace be with 
  you.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-17 Thread Jeff Powers




"The Song Remains The Same" Led 
Zeppelin


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 2:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology
  Hey Gary.Some advice I 
  need - or maybe your observation. What 
  happens now, G? Here on TT. Do I expect to see 
  continued harang under the pretense of honest debate coupled with the most 
  inconsistent of leadership solutions or do things get worse? 
  Just wanting to know so I can prepare myself for any eventuality. 
  I had hopes but the pig and squeal thing is a clear statement to an innate 
  failure that apparently cannot be changed. What's the song 
  -- is this all there is? JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-17 Thread Lance Muir

On COMPARING: Why then the need for 2, count 'em two, Moderators?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 17, 2005 00:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

 John wrote:
  Two things:   (1)  You didn't answer any of
  my questions and

 I don't see the point in your questions, so I did not take the time to
 answer them.  I wrote what I thought was more relevant to conveying an
 understanding to you of my perspective of spiritual growth.  I have no
 interest in comparing believers with me or with one another.  The
Scriptures
 say that this is not wise.

 John wrote:
  (2) how is it that you are like Jesus at [His]
  age 5?  How is this possible with the Holy
  Spirit teaching you propose.   Is the Holy
  Spirit slow to act?   Why not, BAM,  there
  you are?  I mean God has taken over your
  life, right.Has God taken over your life,
  David Miller.   [How can you answer no]
  If that is His job,   why has this not happened
  in full measure.   What makes you 5 years old
  David?

 It is called growth.  When we are born again, we are not born at full
 maturity.  Just like in the physical, we are born a baby, and then we
learn
 and grow, so it is when we are born from above.  We are spiritual infants
at
 first, and we grow.  This is the way that God does it.  It does no good to
 try and argue why it is not done some other way.  We can no more change
 God's order in this than we can have a child who is full grown at birth
and
 skips childhood completely.

 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] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/17/2005 1:52:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
(2) how is it that you are like Jesus at [His]
age 5? How is this possible with the Holy
Spirit teaching you propose. Is the Holy
Spirit slow to act? Why not, BAM, there
you are? I mean God has taken over your
life, right. Has God taken over your life,
David Miller. [How can you answer "no"]
If that is His job, why has this not happened
in full measure. What makes you "5 years old"
David?

It is called growth. When we are born again, we are not born at full
maturity. Just like in the physical, we are born a baby, and then we learn
and grow, so it is when we are born from above. We are spiritual infants at
first, and we grow. This is the way that God does it. It does no good to
try and argue why it is not done some other way. We can no more change
God's order in this than we can have a child who is full grown at birth and
skips childhood completely.

A wonderful non-answer. What specifically makes the difference between you being 5years old and eventually 15 ? I can figure out the "growth" part. What is lacking in your life that relegates you to this early age of immaturity? Since your battle over sin is finished with the receipt of the Indwelling Spirit -- what remains. Personally, I cannot answer this question without including my struggle concerning sin. Do you include things like arrogance, pride, conceit, selfishness, lust and the like as sin? And, do you have no trace of these? Specifics David. That is how you will change my mind.

john

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-17 Thread ShieldsFamily

There's no such thing as fast spiritual growth--just like physical growth it
takes time. Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:24 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

John wrote:
 Two things:   (1)  You didn't answer any of
 my questions and

I don't see the point in your questions, so I did not take the time to 
answer them.  I wrote what I thought was more relevant to conveying an 
understanding to you of my perspective of spiritual growth.  I have no 
interest in comparing believers with me or with one another.  The Scriptures

say that this is not wise.

John wrote:
 (2) how is it that you are like Jesus at [His]
 age 5?  How is this possible with the Holy
 Spirit teaching you propose.   Is the Holy
 Spirit slow to act?   Why not, BAM,  there
 you are?  I mean God has taken over your
 life, right.Has God taken over your life,
 David Miller.   [How can you answer no]
 If that is His job,   why has this not happened
 in full measure.   What makes you 5 years old
 David?

It is called growth.  When we are born again, we are not born at full 
maturity.  Just like in the physical, we are born a baby, and then we learn 
and grow, so it is when we are born from above.  We are spiritual infants at

first, and we grow.  This is the way that God does it.  It does no good to 
try and argue why it is not done some other way.  We can no more change 
God's order in this than we can have a child who is full grown at birth and 
skips childhood completely.

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] Traditional Christian theology






On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:46:17 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  A wonderful non-answer. 
  
  What specifically makes the difference between 
  you being 5years old and eventually 15 ? 
  I can figure out the "growth" 
  part. What is lacking in your life that relegates you to 
  this early age of immaturity? 
  Since your battle over sin 
  is finished with the receipt of the Indwelling Spirit 
  -- what remains. 
  Personally, I cannot answer this question 
  without including my struggle concerning sin. 
  Do you include things like arrogance, pride, 
  conceit, selfishness, lust and the like as sin? 
  
  And, do you have no trace of 
  these? Specifics David. That is how you will change my 
  mind. john 
  
  When did DavidM say his battle with sin 
  was over when he received the indwelling Spirit?
  Unless I have misunderstood I believe I've 
  heard him say things that would lead me to
  believe that he sees sanctification as a 
  second work of grace. Just because he says you
  can be righteous and don't have to sin 
  doesn't mean he is not dealing with issues in his
  own personal life daily. We all 
  are.
  
  Overcomers must deal with the world, the 
  flesh, and the devil on a daily basis standing
  on Christs victory at Calvary. 
  jt

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-17 Thread ShieldsFamily









G is no prophet, JD. 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005
1:04 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology








Hey Gary.


Some advice I need - or maybe your
observation. What happens now, G? Here on
TT. Do I expect to see continued harang under the pretense of
honest debate coupled with the most inconsistent of leadership solutions
or do things get worse? Just wanting to know so I can prepare
myself for any eventuality. I had hopes but the pig and squeal
thing is a clear statement to an innate failure that apparently cannot be
changed. What's the song -- is this all there is? 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/17/2005 8:00:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

When did DavidM say his battle with sin was over when he received the indwelling Spirit?


OK -- let's confirm. What about this David?

J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-17 Thread David Miller

Lance wrote:
 Why then the need for 2, count 'em
 two, Moderators?

Because I have too much bias and too many blind spots to do it alone. 
Plural leadership helps us be more fair to everyone.  I take it you are not 
Presbyterian or Church of Christ.  LOL.

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] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-17 Thread David Miller

Judy wrote:
 When did DavidM say his battle with sin
 was over when he received the indwelling
 Spirit?

John wrote:
 OK  --  let's confirm.
 What about this David?

She is correct.  I continue to battle with the temptation to sin.  I will 
say that I do not have the inner struggle described by Romans 7.  I 
experienced that when my flesh was still alive, and I would probably 
experience it again if I were to indulge my flesh from time to time, but 
when I walk in the Spirit, I find that I do not fulfill the lust of the 
flesh.

John Wesley taught that the young believer, although he does not sin, has 
inner struggles which the mature believer does not.  The appetites of his 
flesh are not tamed and cause him more problems.  The mature believer has 
less struggle because his entire being, thoughts, emotions, etc. have been 
habitually put in subjection to Christ.

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] Traditional Christian theology





myth (like wisdom is wisdom, sin 
is sin)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:28:09 -0500 
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..the young believer, although 
he does not sin, has inner struggles which the mature believer does 
not..

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




And like the young (and at times old) believer is not 
overburdened with it. The fear of the Lord
is the beginning of wisdom. Not much fear 
evidenced here. Not much respect for listowner or
moderators. Lots of immature grumbling and 
complaining. Fear of God is learned behavior. jt


On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:46:07 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  myth (like wisdom is wisdom, 
  sin is sin)
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:28:09 -0500 
  "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..the young believer, 
  although he does not sin, has inner struggles which the mature believer does 
  not..

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




but you enjoy John Wesley, 
eh?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:53:45 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  The fear of the Lord 
  is the beginning of 
  wisdom.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




I enjoy God's Word - and learning the fear of the Lord 
is profitable all around:
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life Prov 
14:27
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Prov 
9:10
The fear of the Lord will prolong your days Prov 
10:27
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil Prov 8:13 (so one 
can speak as the oracles of God)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:00:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  but you enjoy John Wesley, 
  eh?
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:53:45 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
The fear of the Lord 
is the beginning of 
wisdom.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




yetthetheory of 
ityou embrac/d, publically,is Wesley's view

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:11:44 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I enjoy God's Word 
  ..

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




So far as I can tell there are not several options 
available. It says what it says.

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

  yetthetheory of 
  ityou embrac/d, publically,is Wesley's view
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:11:44 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I enjoy God's Word 
..

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




what does this 
mean?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:22:50 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  So far as I can tell there are not 
  several options available. It says what it says.
  
  On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:17:15 -0700 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
yetthetheory of 
ityou embrac/d, publically,is Wesley's 
view

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:11:44 -0500 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I enjoy God's Word 
  ..

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/17/2005 1:29:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Judy wrote:
When did DavidM say his battle with sin
was over when he received the indwelling
Spirit?

John wrote:
OK -- let's confirm.
What about this David?

She is correct. I continue to battle with the temptation to sin. I will 
say that I do not have the inner struggle described by Romans 7. I 
experienced that when my flesh was still alive, and I would probably 
experience it again if I were to indulge my flesh from time to time, but 
when I walk in the Spirit, I find that I do not fulfill the lust of the 
flesh.


David is saying it here in this post, Judy. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT TEMPTATION. I don't like it when I am talking about one thing "sin" and you speak of soemthing entirely different "temptation." I do not like that at all. Let me know when you really want to discuss the issue. 

John -- out and extremely disappointed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. 


Here is the question and we can start the discussion from this:

David Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message); sins of the character (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will be sufficient at this stage. 

Let's not speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all know. Such is a good topic for future discussion, but not now. 

my answer is "yes." My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What about you, David? Yes nor no. 


Jack D Smithson
The Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:14:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I enjoy God's Word - and learning the fear of the Lord is profitable all around:
 The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life Prov 14:27
 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Prov 9:10
 The fear of the Lord will prolong your days Prov 10:27
 The fear of the Lord is to hate evil Prov 8:13 (so one can speak as the oracles of God)
 


A good starting point. But don't leave out "mature love casts out fear."

J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:19:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

yet the theory of it you embrac/d, publically, is Wesley's view
 
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:11:44 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
I enjoy God's Word ..



This is Judy's way of saying "yes" G. 
J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:26:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

We have talked about this before. You are following a terrible translation
here. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned..." The word sinned here is
aorist indicative active. It means past tense. It then continues, "and
come short of the glory of God." The "come short" is present indicative
middle, which means that we fall short in the present because of this past
action of sin. Actually, yours is one of at least two choices. But here are some facts. The middle and passives voices are only contextually separated. Their structure is identical. A.T Robertson sees no difference between the middle voice and the active, thus allowing for the two thoughts to have meaning within themselves - to say exactly what I have proposed. Surprised to find that I just might have a reason for my claim, grammatically? The entire context is setting up how the glory of God is now
manifested in us by the work of Christ. Actually, the word for "glory" has more to do with God's opinion about us than anything -- we have all sinned and we continue to fall short of His good opinion about us [apart from Christ, of course]. That is what is said in verse 23. "All have sinned" is past tense {aorist}, as you have said, but it has a future and continued aspect to it !! How? Well, this indictment is one against the whole of mankind, is it not? Paul is not saying that you, David Miller, have sinned - past tense , only. Rather, he is saying that all of mankind, including those who are not yet alive "have sinned" (illustrating the certainty of the matter) AND [all of mankind] will continue to dissapoint our God.

Before that can be explained and

understood, we have to first acknowledge that because we have all sinned, we
all fall short of God's glory and need this work of justification that is
found in Christ. We cannot say that we continually fall short of his glory
even after we are in Christ because that would be undermining the work of
Christ. The very thing Christ did for us was to deal with this problem
identified in Rom. 3:23. verse 23 does not contain a solution. You probably misspoke, here. Roman Heb 10:10 puts it this -- the solution, that is -- we have all been sanctified ... by his death once and for all time. The problem has not been solved because we have been given the power to never sin again Rather, the solution is found in His work ON OUR BEHALF !! It is his righteousness apart from law that saves us; it is His death that sanctifies us for all time -- no more do we need to go to altar. The sacrifice is ongoing in effect because the sacrificial Lamb LIVES. That is one of the reasons for the resurrection: it eternalized the sacrifice. (new word). There is never a time that we can say that we are without sin (I Jo 1:8; Romans 2:1-3). If ssmokin and drinking and whoring around don't get us, then bigotry, pride, conceit, selfishness, bitterness, envy will (and these kind of things are with us ALWAYS) . Let's not forget sins of omission -- having the time and knowing to do what is right and what needs to be done. We could have always done more. There were and will be times when we say, I am just to tired, or "tonight is Alias" or I just don't want to.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-16 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Hmm, I differ in my interpretation of high places.  It means people who 
occupy positions of high visibility, usually in government jobs, but could also 
be those in teaching, clerics, etc. who are able to influence others by setting 
the pace, or setting the example for others to follow.  A wicked king, like 
Saul, for instance, usually led Israel to do evil, as they watched his bad 
example.  Monkey see, monkey do, as they say.
BlaineRB

  
  David Miller wrote: 
Judy wrote:
  
I believe Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels fell before
the foundation of the world and they now live in
the 2nd heaven (or this worlds upper atmosphere).
  

Terry wrote:
  
When did they leave town, Judy?


I don't think she meant that they left town.  Paul speaks about the evil 
spirits being in the air, working in the children of disobedience from 
there.

Ephesians 2:2
(2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, 
according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh 
in the children of disobedience:

Ephesians 6:12
(12) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, 
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against 
spiritual wickedness in high places.

The phrase high places refers to the heavenlies.  The NASB translates this 
passage in the following way:

Ephesians 6:12
(12) For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the 
rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, 
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 
  
===
Ah so.  I see now.
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] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:26:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sin as a noun, meaning the sin principle of the flesh is with us as long as 
we are in this flesh, but this is not the same thing as saying that there is 
no time we can say that we do not continue to sin. While having a sin 
principle in our flesh (our physical bodies), we can walk in victory, in the 
Spirit, and not fulfill these temptations of the flesh. So while we are not 
without sin, we can, like Jesus Christ himself, walk holy and not commit 
sin. This, of course, only by the transforming work of Christ within us.


David, have you done everything possible today, for the service of the ministry. This day, did you pour yourself out for the afflicted? Is there any degree of selfishness or pride in your life. You you say that you lived your life exactly as God in Christ would have to do in every respect. 

If you answer "yes" to the above --- how many folk do you know, really, who can say the same. An actually number is what I am asking for. 

And what of those who have not so complied. If I said that this would be nearly everyone you know -- what are the impliations of that reality?


John

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

2005-01-16 Thread Slade Henson

We are not to sacrifice to the false gods in high places... i.e., the tops
of hills, etc. Read about Bilam and the attempted cursing of the Sons of
Yisrael in Numbers.

-- slade

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 11.34
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




Hmm, I differ in my interpretation of high places.  It means people who
occupy positions of high visibility, usually in government jobs, but could
also be those in teaching, clerics, etc. who are able to influence others by
setting the pace, or setting the example for others to follow.  A wicked
king, like Saul, for instance, usually led Israel to do evil, as they
watched his bad example.  Monkey see, monkey do, as they say.
BlaineRB


  David Miller wrote:
Judy wrote:

I believe Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels fell before
the foundation of the world and they now live in
the 2nd heaven (or this worlds upper atmosphere).


Terry wrote:

When did they leave town, Judy?


I don't think she meant that they left town.  Paul speaks about the evil
spirits being in the air, working in the children of disobedience from
there.

Ephesians 2:2
(2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh
in the children of disobedience:

Ephesians 6:12
(12) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places.

The phrase high places refers to the heavenlies.  The NASB translates this
passage in the following way:

Ephesians 6:12
(12) For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the
rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

===
Ah so.  I see now.
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.

--
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] Traditional Christian theology

Regarding Eph. 6:12, Blaine wrote:
 I differ in my interpretation of high places.
 It means people who occupy positions of high
 visibility, usually in government jobs, but could
 also be those in teaching, clerics, etc. who are
 able to influence others by setting the pace, or
 setting the example for others to follow.  A wicked
 king, like Saul, for instance, usually led Israel to do
 evil, as they watched his bad example.

The Greek word used there is epouranios.  Strong defines it as:

epouranios
ep-oo-ran'-ee-os
From G1909 and G3772; above the sky: - celestial, (in) heaven (-ly), high.

The KJV translates it 16 times as heavenly, 1 time as heaven, 2 times as 
celestial, and 1 time as high (in the passage we are talking about, Eph. 
6:12).

For example, the word is used in Mat. 18:35 to speak about the heavenly 
Father.  Also epouranious is used in John 3:12, when Jesus says, if I have 
told you of earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I 
tell you of heavenly things.  It also is used in 1 Cor. 15:49, as we have 
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the 
heavenly.  Heb. 12:22 speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, and you guessed it, 
this word, epouranios is translated heavenly there.  And there are many 
other passages that indicate that it speaks of the heavenly area.

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] Traditional Christian theology




John wrote:
 David, have you done everything possible 
today, 
 for the service of the ministry. This 
day, did you 
 pour yourself out for the 
afflicted? Is there any 
 degree of selfishness or pride in your 
life. 
 You you say that you lived your life exactly 
as 
 God in Christ would have to do in every 
respect. 
We 
continually grow in knowledge and understanding, but this does not mean that we 
are condemned at sinners just because we have room to grow. When was the 
last time you looked at a baby? Did you say, "what an evil child, so 
selfish, crying too often, does nothing but eat, sleep, cry, eat, sleep, cry, 
every two hours!" Most people look at a baby and say, "oh, how beautiful, 
how perfect, how innocent." Why? It is because they see the 
potential. They perceive the lack of motive to hurt others, the innocency 
of not knowing how evil the world is around them, and they see potential to grow 
in the right direction.

In like 
manner, none of us have arrived. None of us are in the full image of 
Christ, and none of us alone will reflect the full image of Christ. 
Nevertheless, we can reflect that part of him for which he has manifested his 
grace in us.

Suppose I 
pass a homeless man on the street and he asks me for a quarter. So I reach 
in my pocket and give him a dollar and go on my way. I'm busy. I 
don't want to get involved in his life, but I do kind of care about him, so I 
give him something that does not mean too much to me. Suppose you then 
come across this same man, but instead of just giving him a buck, you take him 
home with you. You feed him and give him a shower and some new 
clothes. You take him out the next day and help him get a job. You 
help him find an apartment and bring him to church with you several times a 
week. Which of us loved the man better? Which of us was less 
selfish. You would be the greater lover here. You would be the least 
selfish of the two of us. But does that mean that I sinned because I only 
gave the guy a buck? No. Emphatically NO! Think about 
it.

I have sometimes said to people, "my life may not be like Jesus Christ when 
he was 32 years old and ministering to others without a place to lay his head, 
but maybe, just maybe, his grace has worked within me so that I am like Jesus 
Christ when he was 5years old." Now the analogy is not perfect, but 
it makes a perfect point. The idea of Jesus being perfect is not static 
one. The Scriptures teach that he grew in wisdom and stature, and he 
learned obedience by the things which he suffered. Just because we might 
not compare to his life in what we see in Scripture as he ministered, this does 
not mean that Christ does not live in us and through us. The way he lives 
in us and through us might be like that of an earlier time of his life, and that 
as we mature in Him, we can expect our life to more closely approach that which 
we read in the Scriptures. The only caveat is that we will never look 
exactly like him in every way, but we can look exactly like him in that part 
which the Spirit has chosen to impart to us as individuals. We can 
perfectly represent one aspect of him, even though as a lone individual we do 
not represent all of him. It is only the entire local church that can 
represent all of him, in all of his glory. This is why relationship and 
community isvery important.

Peace be with 
you.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

Two things: (1) You didn't answer any of my questions and (2) how is it that you are like Jesus at [His] age 5? How is this possible with the Holy Spirit teaching you propose. Is the Holy Spirit slow to act? Why not, BAM, there you are? I mean God has taken over your life, right. Has God taken over your life, David Miller. [How can you answer "no"] If that is His job, why has this not happened in full measure. What makes you "5 years old" David?

John

In a message dated 1/16/2005 8:02:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
David, have you done everything possible today,
for the service of the ministry. This day, did you
pour yourself out for the afflicted? Is there any
degree of selfishness or pride in your life.
You you say that you lived your life exactly as
God in Christ would have to do in every respect.

We continually grow in knowledge and understanding, but this does not mean that we are condemned at sinners just because we have room to grow. When was the last time you looked at a baby? Did you say, "what an evil child, so selfish, crying too often, does nothing but eat, sleep, cry, eat, sleep, cry, every two hours!" Most people look at a baby and say, "oh, how beautiful, how perfect, how innocent." Why? It is because they see the potential. They perceive the lack of motive to hurt others, the innocency of not knowing how evil the world is around them, and they see potential to grow in the right direction.

In like manner, none of us have arrived. None of us are in the full image of Christ, and none of us alone will reflect the full image of Christ. Nevertheless, we can reflect that part of him for which he has manifested his grace in us.

Suppose I pass a homeless man on the street and he asks me for a quarter. So I reach in my pocket and give him a dollar and go on my way. I'm busy. I don't want to get involved in his life, but I do kind of care about him, so I give him something that does not mean too much to me. Suppose you then come across this same man, but instead of just giving him a buck, you take him home with you. You feed him and give him a shower and some new clothes. You take him out the next day and help him get a job. You help him find an apartment and bring him to church with you several times a week. Which of us loved the man better? Which of us was less selfish. You would be the greater lover here. You would be the least selfish of the two of us. But does that mean that I sinned because I only gave the guy a buck? No. Emphatically NO! Think about it.

I have sometimes said to people, "my life may not be like Jesus Christ when he was 32 years old and ministering to others without a place to lay his head, but maybe, just maybe, his grace has worked within me so that I am like Jesus Christ when he was 5 years old." Now the analogy is not perfect, but it makes a perfect point. The idea of Jesus being perfect is not static one. The Scriptures teach that he grew in wisdom and stature, and he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. Just because we might not compare to his life in what we see in Scripture as he ministered, this does not mean that Christ does not live in us and through us. The way he lives in us and through us might be like that of an earlier time of his life, and that as we mature in Him, we can expect our life to more closely approach that which we read in the Scriptures. The only caveat is that we will never look exactly like him in every way, but we can look exactly like him in that part which the Spirit has chosen to impart to us as individuals. We can perfectly represent one aspect of him, even though as a lone individual we do not represent all of him. It is only the entire local church that can represent all of him, in all of his glory. This is why relationship and community is very important.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology




John wrote:
 Two things: (1) You didn't answer any of 

 my questions and 


I don't see the point in them, so I did not 
take the time. I wrote what I thought was more relevant to conveying an 
understanding to you of my perspective of spiritual growth. I have no 
interest in comparing believers with me or with one another. The 
Scriptures say that this is not wise.

John wrote:
 (2) how is it that you are like Jesus at [His] 

 age 5? How is this possible with 
the Holy 
 Spirit teaching you 
propose. Is the Holy 
 Spirit slow to act? Why 
not, BAM, there you are? I mean God has taken over your life, 
right. Has God taken over your life, David Miller. 
[How can you answer "no"] If that is His job, why has this not 
happened in full measure. What makes you "5 years old" David? 
John

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:39 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology
  Two things: (1) 
  You didn't answer any of my questions and (2) how is it that you are like 
  Jesus at [His] age 5? How is this possible with the Holy Spirit teaching 
  you propose. Is the Holy Spirit slow to act? Why not, 
  BAM, there you are? I mean God has taken over your life, 
  right. Has God taken over your life, David 
  Miller. [How can you answer "no"] If that is His 
  job, why has this not happened in full measure. What 
  makes you "5 years old" David? JohnIn a message 
  dated 1/16/2005 8:02:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  John wrote:David, have you done 
everything possible today, for the service of the 
ministry. This day, did you pour yourself out for the 
afflicted? Is there any degree of selfishness or 
pride in your life. You you say that you lived 
your life exactly as God in Christ would have to do in every 
respect. We continually grow in 
knowledge and understanding, but this does not mean that we are condemned at 
sinners just because we have room to grow. When was the last time you 
looked at a baby? Did you say, "what an evil child, so selfish, crying 
too often, does nothing but eat, sleep, cry, eat, sleep, cry, every two 
hours!" Most people look at a baby and say, "oh, how beautiful, how 
perfect, how innocent." Why? It is because they see the 
potential. They perceive the lack of motive to hurt others, the 
innocency of not knowing how evil the world is around them, and they see 
potential to grow in the right direction. In like 
manner, none of us have arrived. None of us are in the full image of 
Christ, and none of us alone will reflect the full image of Christ. 
Nevertheless, we can reflect that part of him for which he has manifested 
his grace in us.  Suppose I pass a homeless 
man on the street and he asks me for a quarter. So I reach in my 
pocket and give him a dollar and go on my way. I'm busy. I don't 
want to get involved in his life, but I do kind of care about him, so I give 
him something that does not mean too much to me. Suppose you then come 
across this same man, but instead of just giving him a buck, you take him 
home with you. You feed him and give him a shower and some new 
clothes. You take him out the next day and help him get a job. 
You help him find an apartment and bring him to church with you several 
times a week. Which of us loved the man better? Which of us was 
less selfish. You would be the greater lover here. You would be 
the least selfish of the two of us. But does that mean that I sinned 
because I only gave the guy a buck? No. Emphatically NO! 
Think about it. I have sometimes said to people, "my life may 
not be like Jesus Christ when he was 32 years old and ministering to others 
without a place to lay his head, but maybe, just maybe, his grace has worked 
within me so that I am like Jesus Christ when he was 5 years old." Now 
the analogy is not perfect, but it makes a perfect point. The idea of 
Jesus being perfect is not static one. The Scriptures teach that he 
grew in wisdom and stature, and he learned obedience by the things which he 
suffered. Just because we might not compare to his life in what we see 
in Scripture as he ministered, this does not mean that Christ does not live 
in us and through us. The way he lives in us and through us might be 
like that of an earlier time of his life, and that as we mature in Him, we 
can expect our life to more closely approach that which we read in the 
Scriptures. The only caveat is that we will never look exactly like 
him in every way, but we can look exactly like him in that part which the 
Spirit has chosen to impart to us as individuals. We can perfectly 
represent one aspect of him, even though as a lone

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology

John wrote:
 Two things:   (1)  You didn't answer any of
 my questions and

I don't see the point in your questions, so I did not take the time to 
answer them.  I wrote what I thought was more relevant to conveying an 
understanding to you of my perspective of spiritual growth.  I have no 
interest in comparing believers with me or with one another.  The Scriptures 
say that this is not wise.

John wrote:
 (2) how is it that you are like Jesus at [His]
 age 5?  How is this possible with the Holy
 Spirit teaching you propose.   Is the Holy
 Spirit slow to act?   Why not, BAM,  there
 you are?  I mean God has taken over your
 life, right.Has God taken over your life,
 David Miller.   [How can you answer no]
 If that is His job,   why has this not happened
 in full measure.   What makes you 5 years old
 David?

It is called growth.  When we are born again, we are not born at full 
maturity.  Just like in the physical, we are born a baby, and then we learn 
and grow, so it is when we are born from above.  We are spiritual infants at 
first, and we grow.  This is the way that God does it.  It does no good to 
try and argue why it is not done some other way.  We can no more change 
God's order in this than we can have a child who is full grown at birth and 
skips childhood completely.

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] Traditional Christian theology

In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:20:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


John wrote:
 Two things: (1) You didn't answer any of 
my questions and 
 
I don't see the point in them, so I did not take the time. I wrote what I thought was more relevant to conveying an understanding to you of my perspective of spiritual growth. I have no interest in comparing believers with me or with one another. The Scriptures say that this is not wise.
 


Let's discontinue this "discussion," David. I, too have more relevant things to do. 

John -- out !!

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology