RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Happily. J Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:12 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Probably better that we don't, 'cuz I was going to argue why you were all wet with this one :>) Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:27 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Oh, please let’s don’t go there. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! I'm fine with that, Izzy -- as long as that is not the same as saying, say, "the only 'parts' that get saved are the parts that get wet," 'cuz then we would have to have a discussion about both baptismal regeneration and the acceptable modes of baptism. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:53 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! I’m a believer in going all the way on a good thingy. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:40 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! I see the smilen face and assume you are joking. Tell me you are joking . . . Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:31 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! It seems to me that the only “parts” that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Helps clarify between John the Dunker and John the Sprinkler. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.33 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Slade Henson wrote: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade "Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original language term? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Probably better that we don't, 'cuz I was going to
argue why you were all wet with this one :>)
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:27
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Oh, please lets
dont go there. J Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:30
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
I'm fine with
that, Izzy -- as long as that is not the same as
saying, say, "the only 'parts' that get saved are the parts that get
wet," 'cuz then we would have to have a discussion about both baptismal
regeneration and the acceptable modes of baptism.
Bill
-
Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday,
January 18, 2005 7:53 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
Im a believer in
going all the way on a good thingy. Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:40
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
I see the
smilen face and assume you are joking. Tell me you are joking . .
.
Bill
-
Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday,
January 18, 2005 7:31 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
It seems to me
that the only parts that get saved are the parts that get wet.
J
Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
Helps clarify
between John the Dunker and John the
Sprinkler.
--
slade
-Original
Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry
CliftonSent: Monday,
17 January, 2005 21.33To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
Slade Henson wrote:
I wish I could
tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The
root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my
understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent!
The Kingdom of God is at
hand" and I think they meant it. It was there
for the "taking."
--
slade
"Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or
is that the original language
term?Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Oh, please let’s don’t go there. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! I'm fine with that, Izzy -- as long as that is not the same as saying, say, "the only 'parts' that get saved are the parts that get wet," 'cuz then we would have to have a discussion about both baptismal regeneration and the acceptable modes of baptism. Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:53 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! I’m a believer in going all the way on a good thingy. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:40 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! I see the smilen face and assume you are joking. Tell me you are joking . . . Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:31 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! It seems to me that the only “parts” that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Helps clarify between John the Dunker and John the Sprinkler. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.33 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Slade Henson wrote: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade "Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original language term? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I'm fine with that, Izzy -- as long as
that is not the same as saying, say, "the only 'parts' that get saved
are the parts that get wet," 'cuz then we would have to have a discussion about
both baptismal regeneration and the acceptable modes of
baptism.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:53
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Im a believer in
going all the way on a good thingy. Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:40
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
I see the
smilen face and assume you are joking. Tell me you are joking . .
.
Bill
-
Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday,
January 18, 2005 7:31 AM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
It seems to me that
the only parts that get saved are the parts that get wet.
J
Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
Helps clarify
between John the Dunker and John the
Sprinkler.
--
slade
-Original
Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry
CliftonSent: Monday, 17
January, 2005 21.33To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
Slade Henson wrote:
I wish I could
tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The
root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my
understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The
Kingdom of
God is at
hand" and I think they meant it. It was there
for the "taking."
--
slade
"Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or
is that the original language
term?Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
in your resurrection rubric, that'd be when? On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:30:08 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I don't disagree with the idea that ['the perfect'] refers to the time of the resurrection,
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/18/2005 3:09:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know what you mean about 'maturity' John - I do know this to be the context for the word perfect in some other places but in 1 Cor 13:10 'complete' would be better. We can know it refers to Christ rather than the Bible because of the setting ie: "Love never fails, now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face. Now I know in part - then I shall know as I am known" Vs.12 This speaks to me of the second coming. judyt Which is not even alluded to in the passage. What is given, in terms of context, is this: When I was a child .. I thought as a child .. now that I have become a man ... I did away with childish things" (I Co 13:11). Keep in mind the purpose of this passage: to present a teaching that outlines conduct befitting those who are, in deed, mature -- allowing for the growth of (especially) the assembled relationship of the Body. Since the advice goes to relationships, it is and can be used in any discussion involving people, whether married or not, whether assembled or not (a church or a discussion group), whether between two friends or at a town hall meeting. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I’m a believer in going all the way on a good thingy. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:40 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! I see the smilen face and assume you are joking. Tell me you are joking . . . Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:31 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! It seems to me that the only “parts” that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Helps clarify between John the Dunker and John the Sprinkler. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.33 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Slade Henson wrote: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade "Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original language term? Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I respectfully disagree, Terry. Iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:21 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Lance Muir wrote: >Terry, I see YOU as a disciple of Jesus. > > === Thank you Lance. That is very important to me. I wish that everyone could see that, but I am afraid that it shows so seldom that most miss it when it happens. Terry > > > -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I see the smilen face and assume you are joking. Tell me you are joking . . . Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:31 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! It seems to me that the only parts that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Helps clarify between John the Dunker and John the Sprinkler. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.33To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Slade Henson wrote: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade "Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original language term?Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
It seems to me that the only “parts” that get saved are the parts that get wet. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:30 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Helps clarify between John the Dunker and John the Sprinkler. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.33 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Slade Henson wrote: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade "Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original language term? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Lance Muir wrote: Terry, I see YOU as a disciple of Jesus. === Thank you Lance. That is very important to me. I wish that everyone could see that, but I am afraid that it shows so seldom that most miss it when it happens. Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Judy wrote: >> Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" >> because that which is perfect is Christ Himself and He >> has yet to come. * John wrote: > This is clearly speaking of maturity -- that is if immediate > context means anything at all. Not only context supports what you are saying, John, but the Greek word translated perfect is neuter, so it cannot specifically refer to Jesus Christ. I don't disagree with the idea that it refers to the time of the resurrection, when Christ returns, but to say that it refers to Christ Himself is a setup for falsification from the cessationists when they exegete the Greek language here. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I don't know what you mean about 'maturity' John - I do know this to be the context for the word perfect in some other places but in 1 Cor 13:10 'complete' would be better. We can know it refers to Christ rather than the Bible because of the setting ie: "Love never fails, now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face. Now I know in part - then I shall know as I am known" Vs.12 This speaks to me of the second coming. judyt On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:53:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:31:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:What scripture? *Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect isChrist Himself and He has yet to come. *This is clearly speaking of maturity -- that is if immediate context means anything at all.J
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Terry, I see YOU as a disciple of Jesus. - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 17, 2005 14:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! > Lance Muir wrote: > > >Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself > >or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, "I am of > >David". (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen' > >David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at > >least one disciple. > > > > > > Please stand corrected , brother Lance. I have great respect for David > Miller. I have learned much from him. He is my brother and I love > him. Often we are in agreement. In my opinion, that does not make me > his diciple. It makes us brothers and friends. That is enough. > Terry > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Helps clarify between John the Dunker and John the Sprinkler. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.33To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!Slade Henson wrote: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade"Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original language term?Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:31:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What scripture? *Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect is Christ Himself and He has yet to come. * This is clearly speaking of maturity -- that is if immediate context means anything at all. J
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
OK, but I have to sleep first! (It's 12:30 a.m. here.) For now I'll just add this: I can talk the talk, but that doesn't mean I have the integration thing down. The principal I taught under in the Christian school used "evidence of struggle" as one of his criteria of authenticity. Debbie -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:01 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Fascinating, Debbie. Terry recently started a “thingy” of telling about himself and his life, then some others did. I’d be interested to hear any more about you that you care to share. I also love the idea of an integrated faith/life. I don’t know exactly where I picked up the idea, but it just came. I’d love to hear more of your take on it. Also I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “Reformed”—could you explain what that is? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie SawczakSent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:04 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! There are several threads on my loom, Slade. Probably the two most important, in terms of your comment, are Mennonite and Reformed (oddly enough, given the history of those two groups). I mean the horse-and-buggy, no-phone Mennonites, who, as an ethnoreligious minority (like devout Jews) have their faith and culture inextricably bound up together. In their case it has held because they've chosen to live as separate from the world as they can, and this choice comes out of what they believe about God and salvation. I wasn't raised in this type of Mennonite community, but my mother was (until her parents were excommunicated), and I inherited from her the idea that faith permeates all of life. Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot like Yiddish, BTW! :-) The same idea is central to the Reformed tradition. That thread has entered my life through Christian schooling (as student, teacher, and involved parent), a Reformed specialty. I could blather on forever about this, but for now I'll just say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of which maintains an unconsciously compartmentalized (and therefore "safe") approach while the other works hard and fearlessly at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know about the second kind (and in fact the huge, rapid influx of frightened non-Reformed folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but I'm very grateful to God for the privilege of having experienced it. Other major threads are Catholic (my husband--and I could write a whole nother discourse about this in relation to David's comments about marriage, unity, and "saying the same thing") and evangelical. I grew up in your standard evangelical-type church, against whose compartmentalizing effect the other influences prevailed. As for what I've been exposed to recently: Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and N.T. Wright, for starters. Thanks for asking! Debbie -Original Message-From: Slade Henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Hello again, Debbie. I enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in context. Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed to recently? -- slade -Original Message-From: Debbie SawczakSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below. "There is no sacred vs profane" means that life is not divided into two compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I just
realized that there's a seeming irony there; the Mennonites try to live
"separate from the world", in the sense of separate from the mainstream of
society, but the result is that their religion (such as it is) is not
separate from life. Meanwhile the Reformed strand achieves a similar
degree of integration in trying to involve itself, redemptively, in the
mainstream of society.
The
compartmentalized Christian, on the other hand, is so uncritically involved in
the mainstream as to be conformed to it except for the little chunk of life
that is explicitly taken up with church, Bible study, prayer, and the
like.
Debbie
-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:04
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
There are several threads on my loom, Slade. Probably the two most
important, in terms of your comment, are Mennonite and Reformed (oddly enough,
given the history of those two groups). I mean the horse-and-buggy,
no-phone Mennonites, who, as an ethnoreligious minority (like devout
Jews) have their faith and culture inextricably bound up together. In their
case it has held because they've chosen to live as separate from the
world as they can, and this choice comes out of what they believe about God
and salvation. I wasn't raised in this type of Mennonite community, but my
mother was (until her parents were excommunicated), and I inherited from
her the idea that faith permeates all of life. Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot
like Yiddish, BTW! :-)
The
same idea is central to the Reformed tradition. That thread has
entered my life through Christian schooling (as student, teacher, and involved
parent), a Reformed specialty. I could blather on forever about this, but
for now I'll just say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of
which maintains an unconsciously compartmentalized (and therefore
"safe") approach while the other works hard and fearlessly
at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know about the
second kind (and in fact the huge, rapid influx of frightened
non-Reformed folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but
I'm very grateful to God for the privilege of having experienced
it.
Other major threads are Catholic (my husband--and I could write a
whole nother discourse about this in relation to David's comments about
marriage, unity, and "saying the same thing") and evangelical.
I grew up in your standard evangelical-type church, against whose
compartmentalizing effect the other influences prevailed.
As
for what I've been exposed to recently: Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and
N.T. Wright, for starters. Thanks for asking!
Debbie
-Original Message-From: Slade Henson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005
8:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
Hello again, Debbie.
I
enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in
context. Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed
to recently?
--
slade
-Original Message-From: Debbie
SawczakSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29Subject:
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs
profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the
word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below. "There
is no sacred vs profane" means that life is not divided into two
compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one
hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life
which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of
activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is
not relevant.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Fascinating, Debbie. Terry recently started a “thingy” of telling about himself and his life, then some others did. I’d be interested to hear any more about you that you care to share. I also love the idea of an integrated faith/life. I don’t know exactly where I picked up the idea, but it just came. I’d love to hear more of your take on it. Also I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “Reformed”—could you explain what that is? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:04 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! There are several threads on my loom, Slade. Probably the two most important, in terms of your comment, are Mennonite and Reformed (oddly enough, given the history of those two groups). I mean the horse-and-buggy, no-phone Mennonites, who, as an ethnoreligious minority (like devout Jews) have their faith and culture inextricably bound up together. In their case it has held because they've chosen to live as separate from the world as they can, and this choice comes out of what they believe about God and salvation. I wasn't raised in this type of Mennonite community, but my mother was (until her parents were excommunicated), and I inherited from her the idea that faith permeates all of life. Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot like Yiddish, BTW! :-) The same idea is central to the Reformed tradition. That thread has entered my life through Christian schooling (as student, teacher, and involved parent), a Reformed specialty. I could blather on forever about this, but for now I'll just say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of which maintains an unconsciously compartmentalized (and therefore "safe") approach while the other works hard and fearlessly at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know about the second kind (and in fact the huge, rapid influx of frightened non-Reformed folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but I'm very grateful to God for the privilege of having experienced it. Other major threads are Catholic (my husband--and I could write a whole nother discourse about this in relation to David's comments about marriage, unity, and "saying the same thing") and evangelical. I grew up in your standard evangelical-type church, against whose compartmentalizing effect the other influences prevailed. As for what I've been exposed to recently: Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and N.T. Wright, for starters. Thanks for asking! Debbie -Original Message- From: Slade Henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:24 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Hello again, Debbie. I enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in context. Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed to recently? -- slade -Original Message- From: Debbie Sawczak Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below. "There is no sacred vs profane" means that life is not divided into two compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
There are several threads on my loom, Slade. Probably the two most important, in terms of your comment, are Mennonite and Reformed (oddly enough, given the history of those two groups). I mean the horse-and-buggy, no-phone Mennonites, who, as an ethnoreligious minority (like devout Jews) have their faith and culture inextricably bound up together. In their case it has held because they've chosen to live as separate from the world as they can, and this choice comes out of what they believe about God and salvation. I wasn't raised in this type of Mennonite community, but my mother was (until her parents were excommunicated), and I inherited from her the idea that faith permeates all of life. Pennsylvania Dutch is a lot like Yiddish, BTW! :-) The same idea is central to the Reformed tradition. That thread has entered my life through Christian schooling (as student, teacher, and involved parent), a Reformed specialty. I could blather on forever about this, but for now I'll just say there are two kinds of Christian education, one of which maintains an unconsciously compartmentalized (and therefore "safe") approach while the other works hard and fearlessly at integration and the engagement of culture. Most people don't know about the second kind (and in fact the huge, rapid influx of frightened non-Reformed folk into the Christian school movement is threatening it), but I'm very grateful to God for the privilege of having experienced it. Other major threads are Catholic (my husband--and I could write a whole nother discourse about this in relation to David's comments about marriage, unity, and "saying the same thing") and evangelical. I grew up in your standard evangelical-type church, against whose compartmentalizing effect the other influences prevailed. As for what I've been exposed to recently: Trinitarianism, Lesslie Newbigin, and N.T. Wright, for starters. Thanks for asking! Debbie -Original Message-From: Slade Henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Hello again, Debbie. I enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in context. Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed to recently? -- slade -Original Message-From: Debbie SawczakSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below. "There is no sacred vs profane" means that life is not divided into two compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Slade Henson wrote: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade "Immerser". I like that term. Your idea, or is that the original language term? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
ok--thx for the clarification, Slade..'is at hand' in the NT means that the KoG has come ~'close enough to touch', mng that the KoG did not eminate from|w/i time..therefor it is not the presnce of the 'present' on display in the NT (else we'll pass like ships in the night..i'll simply hand you ovr to Tillich, et.al.) G On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:03:19 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.43 "existentialism and the NT are mergd in, e.g., PTillich's thought/s--what's his take on the KoG?" From: Slade HensonSent: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:23:59"Does this mean you don't believe in the Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT in Christ?" From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.00"arrays/displays one subtle (postOT) theme (retrospectvly) abt the KoG: the presence of the future in Christ"
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I wish I could tell you what PTillich's thoughts are, but I don't know who s/he is. The root of my question comes from this basic premise: it's my understanding that Messiah and the Immerser said, "Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand" and I think they meant it. It was there for the "taking." -- slade From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.43 "existentialism and the NT are mergd in, e.g., PTillich's thought/s--what's his take on the KoG?" From: Slade HensonSent: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:23:59"Does this mean you don't believe in the Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT in Christ?" From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.00"arrays/displays one subtle (postOT) theme (retrospectvly) abt the KoG: the presence of the future in Christ"
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
not sure what you mean, jt...e.g. while embracg Wesley's view/s, you believe that.. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:22:48 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..we are the "future in Christ" - we are living it and walking it out daily .. I submit that we need all the help we can get.. jt ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
existentialism and the NT are mergd in, e.g., PTillich's thought/s--what's his take on the KoG? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:23:59 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Does this mean you don't believe in the Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT in Christ? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.00Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! arrays/displays one subtle (postOT) theme (retrospectvly) abt the KoG: the presence of the future in Christ
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Does this mean you don't believe in the Kingdom of God: the presence of the PRESENT in Christ? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 21.00Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! arrays/displays one subtle (postOT) theme (retrospectvly) abt the KoG: the presence of the future in Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Yeah well Gary we are the "future in Christ" - we are living it and walking it out daily .. I submit that we need all the help we can get.. jt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:12:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (revisd version of parag 2, below) On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g. in a micro sense, the Ap Paul paints eschatology in art complementary to the Ap John's; independent artists yet togethr, perhaps unwittingly except for the HS upon them, they are the synergistic composers of a tangible NT 'l/cc' [2.]in a macro sense, there are numerous revelatory phenomena in the NT era, per se, [in] which all [the associatd] Apostolic art sorts imagery to/within the overarching NT 'l/cc' in quick sum, Apostolic artists elevatd or subordinatd NT art-events to the comprehensive, thoroughgoing satisfaction of the HS-curator on Earth--it's this curator's personally endowed gallery solicited once in time in whch all of the relevant art tactically and tactfully arrays/displays one subtle (postOT) theme (retrospectvly) abt the KoG: the presence of the future in Christ G On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:44 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial context?" ..
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
(revisd version of parag 2, below) On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g. in a micro sense, the Ap Paul paints eschatology in art complementary to the Ap John's; independent artists yet togethr, perhaps unwittingly except for the HS upon them, they are the synergistic composers of a tangible NT 'l/cc' [2.]in a macro sense, there are numerous revelatory phenomena in the NT era, per se, [in] which all [the associatd] Apostolic art sorts imagery to/within the overarching NT 'l/cc' in quick sum, Apostolic artists elevatd or subordinatd NT art-events to the comprehensive, thoroughgoing satisfaction of the HS-curator on Earth--it's this curator's personally endowed gallery solicited once in time in whch all of the relevant art tactically and tactfully arrays/displays one subtle (postOT) theme (retrospectvly) abt the KoG: the presence of the future in Christ G On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:44 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial context?" ..
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
e.g. in a micro sense, the Ap Paul paints eschatology in art complementary to the Ap John's; independent artists yet togethr, perhaps unwittingly except for the HS upon them, they are the synergistic composers of a tangible NT 'l/cc' in a macro sense, there are numerous revelatory phenomena in the NT era, per se, which all Apostolic art sorts imagery to/within the overarching NT 'l/cc' in quick sum, Apostolic artists elevatd or subordinatd NT art-events to the comprehensive, thoroughgoing satisfaction of the HS-curator on Earth--it's this curator's personally endowed gallery solicited once in time in whch all of the relevant art tactically and tactfully arrays/displays one subtle (postOT) theme (retrospectvly) abt the KoG: the presence of the future in Christ G On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:44 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial context?" ..
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Hello again, Debbie. I enjoyed your thoughts here. Your noncompartmentalization is Hebraic in context. Pray tell... what is your background or what have you been exposed to recently? -- slade -Original Message-From: Debbie SawczakSent: Monday, 17 January, 2005 17.29Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below. "There is no sacred vs profane" means that life is not divided into two compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Thanks Kevin and Gary for the answer to [B], Juno and Netzero are in cahoots but I'm still amazed by the speed. As for [A] What exactly is a "live/crucial context?" That's a new one on me. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:25:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A. i don't recognize your question in a live/crucial cntxt B. ISP: Netzero On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:10:06 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [A.]Do you have any scripture other than the one I mentioned to support why you believe that the prophetic gifting is not for today? [B.]what kind of ISP do you hav? It amazes me how fast these messages get from CO to VA On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what does this mean/imply? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..if..you have some other foundational scripture ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Relax Terry, I promise not to be mean! :) Jeff Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 14:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!I have a bad habit of sometimes responding without enough fore thought to how it might be received. Need to work on that. I have zinged Jeff twice this month and now I have to await his revenge. His silence to this point causes me to fear and tremble.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
A. i don't recognize your question in a live/crucial cntxt B. ISP: Netzero On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:10:06 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [A.]Do you have any scripture other than the one I mentioned to support why you believe that the prophetic gifting is not for today? [B.]what kind of ISP do you hav? It amazes me how fast these messages get from CO to VA On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what does this mean/imply? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..if..you have some other foundational scripture ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Once you hit send, delivery could take well nigh to 20 milliseconds! Message Queing may take up to a minute or two, or a second on a fast serverJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do you have any scripture other than the one I mentioned to support why you believe that the prophetic gifting is not for today? I have a question also - what kind of ISP do you hav? It amazes me how fast these messages get from CO to VA On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what does this mean/imply? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..if..you have some other foundational scripture || Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Do you have any scripture other than the one I mentioned to support why you believe that the prophetic gifting is not for today? I have a question also - what kind of ISP do you hav? It amazes me how fast these messages get from CO to VA On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:41 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what does this mean/imply? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..if..you have some other foundational scripture ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
what does this mean/imply? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..if..you have some other foundational scripture ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
You don't have to run off if I am wrong and you have some other foundational scripture to support your claim that propecy is a thing of the past. The argument I always heard was "that which is perfect is the Bible" and this is why prophecy is no longer needed. Is this your stance? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:42:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it was nice talkin' with ya On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:28:33 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You didn't give the scripture to support your claim And I've already heard the arguments from your tradition. jt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: first, what do you mean by *this*? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What scripture? *Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect is Christ Himself and He has yet to come. *
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
it was nice talkin' with ya On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:28:33 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You didn't give the scripture to support your claim And I've already heard the arguments from your tradition. jt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: first, what do you mean by *this*? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What scripture? *Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect is Christ Himself and He has yet to come. *
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Interesting perspective Debbie - I can agree that he (God) is relevant in all areas and that he does have the supreme claim to our lives. However, this is mainly theory because facts are He will not intrude where we don't want Him and if we prefer to do things our way, He lets us. He gave Israel their desire to the detriment of their souls when they craved meat in the wilderness and it is still possible to be worshipping Him with our lips while our hearts are far from Him. But thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. jt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:29:16 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below. "There is no sacred vs profane" means that life is not divided into two compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant. I'm confident we would agree on that. Debbie From: Judy Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Must confess that I didn't have much clue about what Avram and Josef was trying to say. But seemingly this is another example of how tradition conflicts with or makes of no effect the truth of scripture. There is a very clear separation of sacred vs profane all through the scriptures and this is an area that Israel violated constantly - Will we or won't we learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6; Heb 4:3-6)? Therefore thus says the Lord, if thou return, then will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them (Jeremiah 15:19) Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 22:26) And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments, and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies, and they shall hallow my sabbaths. (Ezekiel 44:23) judyt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:07:07 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Debbie] Yes, David, of course anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is to do it wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and my interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the same thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible and less oblique than, what I did), but if you follow us both out to the end it is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least, compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there is no sacred vs profaneb) Torah-study takes in all of lifeFrom: David Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to lineup with Biblical language.For example, you wrote:> The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post)> ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing> different things they didn't say the same thing; they said> complementary things.Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity ofspeech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, butat the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't saythe same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is thatpeople will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that arenot complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism ofour modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever theywant. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and berelevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that actuallyfits somewhere.It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurateof the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fittogether in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how wehave the same m
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
You didn't give the scripture to support your claim And I've already heard the arguments from your tradition. jt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: first, what do you mean by *this*? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What scripture? *Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect is Christ Himself and He has yet to come. *
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
first, what do you mean by *this*? On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:02:57 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What scripture? *Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect is Christ Himself and He has yet to come. *
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Hi Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently than the texts you mention below. "There is no sacred vs profane" means that life is not divided into two compartments, a spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant. I'm confident we would agree on that. Debbie -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:54 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Must confess that I didn't have much clue about what Avram and Josef was trying to say. But seemingly this is another example of how tradition conflicts with or makes of no effect the truth of scripture. There is a very clear separation of sacred vs profane all through the scriptures and this is an area that Israel violated constantly - Will we or won't we learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6; Heb 4:3-6)? Therefore thus says the Lord, if thou return, then will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them (Jeremiah 15:19) Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 22:26) And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments, and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies, and they shall hallow my sabbaths. (Ezekiel 44:23) judyt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:07:07 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Debbie] Yes, David, of course anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is to do it wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and my interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the same thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible and less oblique than, what I did), but if you follow us both out to the end it is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least, compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there is no sacred vs profaneb) Torah-study takes in all of lifeFrom: David Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to lineup with Biblical language.For example, you wrote:> The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post)> ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing> different things they didn't say the same thing; they said> complementary things.Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity ofspeech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, butat the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't saythe same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is thatpeople will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that arenot complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism ofour modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever theywant. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and berelevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that actuallyfits somewhere.It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurateof the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fittogether in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how wehave the same mind and how we do speak the same things. In fact, if someonewere to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for him and justifyhis teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Pauland misrepresented him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation inActs 21).Debbie wrote:> They certainly don't sound the same;They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a differentcontext. They do sound the same when they a
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
What scripture? Please don't say "when that which is perfect has come" because that which is perfect is Christ Himself and He has yet to come. jt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:53:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g., the Prophetic tradition terminatd, acc to Scripture On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:45:25 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> .. the fruitfulness of tradition is often temporary.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
e.g., the Prophetic tradition terminatd, acc to Scripture On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:45:25 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> .. the fruitfulness of tradition is often temporary.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Lance wrote: > Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts > to, "I am of David". (Linda, please illustrate for > us with what frequency you 'amen' David > (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) > Sorry David, but ya gots at least one disciple. Linda also has disagreed with some of my posts. Expressing agreement does not make someone a disciple. I have expressed agreement with you on some posts. Does that mean that you think I am YOUR disciple? Lance wrote: > Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST > ON TT!! Some might privately interpret Scritpure, but for the believer, this is not allowed. I would hope that anyone who expresses his viewpoint is doing so with the idea that someone will correct him if he is wrong. Our goal is to adopt the message being conveyed by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, not our private interpretation of it. Lance wrote: > Who among us says: "What I'm about to say > that differs with what you say has no biblical > foundation whatsoever, as I interpret Scripture." I don't have that good a memory considering the volume of posts made here. Maybe it was Judy. You had better ask whoever authored that what they meant. I hope it does not mean that they have a right to interpret Scripture their way and others have a right to interpret Scripture in a different way. It sounds to me like the meaning is that based upon their understanding of Scripture, what they are about to rebut has no Biblical foundation. Lance wrote: > Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda > as having a dislike, if not disdain, for 'tradition'? I can't speak for them, but for me, I appreciate tradition. I would not say that I dislike tradition. At the same time, I recognize bad tradition as well as good tradition. Lance wrote: > What, as y'all see it, replaces this (tradition) is your > (correct) interpretation of Scripture. No, you don't perceive it accurately here. My view, and I assume that of Judy and Izzy also, is that Scripture is the ultimate authority, and if a tradition is not bearing good fruit, and it is not in Scripture, we should not be afraid to depart from it. The truths of Scripture are eternal, but the fruitfulness of tradition is often temporary. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, "I am of David". (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen' David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at least one disciple. Lance are you saying that you object to any of us publicly agreeing with posts that we think are exemplary? Don’t many of you do that when Jonathan or Bill or someone you agree with posts? This seems like a petty complaint coming from you. Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself or David on this. Further on this, David, are we reading the same forum? Who among us says: "What I'm about to say that differs with what you say has no biblical foundation whatsoever, as I interpret Scripture." Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda as having a dislike, if not disdain, for 'tradition'? What, as y'all see it, replaces this (tradition) is your (correct) interpretation of Scripture.By 'private' I'd include those who both know what you mean and agree with your interpretation. Lance I have stated before that I value tradition; just not when it supersedes scripture. Matt 15:3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? Matt 15:6 And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Mark 7:8"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." Mark 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. Mark 7:13 “…thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Bill Taylor wrote: If we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each having different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each other even when we disagree. Izzy But we have never done it that way. It defies TT tradition. Do you really think it might work? :-) Terry I don't know, Terry (and I hope your question is general enough to allow for my intrusion), but I fear if it does not, Christ will do with TT what he promises to do with congregations when they fail to repent, and that is, he will remove from us our lampstand, the result being that the darkness will be such that no one will be confused by any claims on our part to be his representatives on earth. There are lots of dead churches packed with members too stupid -- for whatever reason: pride being the most evident -- to dismount, but I don't really think the world really thinks they are a true representation of Christ. The truth is, I think the world knows better than that. Anyway, I sure hope that we can make it work out. Bill That is kind of an inside joke in our home church, Bill. It is all too common, at least here in the Bible Belt, to hear that from deacons and pastors. People question why we prefer to meet in homes, and we in turn question some of the things done in the institutional church. Often these things done in the IC have no biblical basis, and so when we ask why they do it that way, the answer is "Because we have always done it that way". Supposedly, if great grandpa and grandpa did it that way, then that is the way it should be done. Scripture seems to have nothing to do with it. Tradition is all important. Couldn't help myself when I saw Izzy's post. Just had to point to our recent tradition here. I have a bad habit of sometimes responding without enough fore thought to how it might be received. Need to work on that. I have zinged Jeff twice this month and now I have to await his revenge. His silence to this point causes me to fear and tremble. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Lance, for the record, I agree with you here! It's unfortunate that David M.(and a few others) is blind to the simple realities of this list. Jeff Life makes warriors of us all. To emerge the victors, we must arm ourselves with the most potent of weapons. That weapon is prayer. --Rebbe Nachman of Breslov - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 14:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, "I am of David". (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen' David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at least one disciple. Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself or David on this. Further on this, David, are we reading the same forum? Who among us says: "What I'm about to say that differs with what you say has no biblical foundation whatsoever, as I interpret Scripture." Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda as having a dislike, if not disdain, for 'tradition'? What, as y'all see it, replaces this (tradition) is your (correct) interpretation of Scripture.By 'private' I'd include those who both know what you mean and agree with your interpretation. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 17, 2005 12:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Lance wrote: > David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel > of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism that is being > addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of > David(that would be Linda), others say 'I am > of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David, sectarianism > does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks > of 'the good news of the gospel of Jesus' does he > not? Surely there is no final standard by which we > determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I > read you, is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH > on equal footing with David Miller. This is so is it not? No, it is not so. Paul was rebuking sectarianism. We should not have anyone here saying, "I am of David" (I do NOT believe this is Linda) nor others saying, "I am of Judy" (who says this?). We should all be seeking to be conformed to the image of Christ. The final arbiter of truth is Jesus Christ. Private interpretation of Scripture is NOT ALLOWED. The reason we discuss with one another is to circumvent private interpretation. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Lance Muir wrote: Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, "I am of David". (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen' David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at least one disciple. Please stand corrected , brother Lance. I have great respect for David Miller. I have learned much from him. He is my brother and I love him. Often we are in agreement. In my opinion, that does not make me his diciple. It makes us brothers and friends. That is enough. Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
If we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each having different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each other even when we disagree. Izzy But we have never done it that way. It defies TT tradition. Do you really think it might work? :-)Terry I don't know, Terry (and I hope your question is general enough to allow for my intrusion), but I fear if it does not, Christ will do with TT what he promises to do with congregations when they fail to repent, and that is, he will remove from us our lampstand, the result being that the darkness will be such that no one will be confused by any claims on our part to be his representatives on earth. There are lots of dead churches packed with members too stupid -- for whatever reason: pride being the most evident -- to dismount, but I don't really think the world really thinks they are a true representation of Christ. The truth is, I think the world knows better than that. Anyway, I sure hope that we can make it work out. Bill - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! ShieldsFamily wrote: Titus 3:1Remind them 2to malign no one,to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 3For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Sectarianism DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself or David on this. Further, Linda does indeed say what amounts to, "I am of David". (Linda, please illustrate for us with what frequency you 'amen' David (WOW that was an awesome post, David!) Sorry David, but ya gots at least one disciple. Private interpretation DOES INDEED EXIST ON TT!! Please, someone correct either myself or David on this. Further on this, David, are we reading the same forum? Who among us says: "What I'm about to say that differs with what you say has no biblical foundation whatsoever, as I interpret Scripture." Am I incorrect in identifying you, Judy and Linda as having a dislike, if not disdain, for 'tradition'? What, as y'all see it, replaces this (tradition) is your (correct) interpretation of Scripture.By 'private' I'd include those who both know what you mean and agree with your interpretation. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 17, 2005 12:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! > Lance wrote: > > David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel > > of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism that is being > > addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of > > David(that would be Linda), others say 'I am > > of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David, sectarianism > > does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks > > of 'the good news of the gospel of Jesus' does he > > not? Surely there is no final standard by which we > > determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I > > read you, is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH > > on equal footing with David Miller. This is so is it not? > > No, it is not so. Paul was rebuking sectarianism. We should not have > anyone here saying, "I am of David" (I do NOT believe this is Linda) nor > others saying, "I am of Judy" (who says this?). We should all be seeking to > be conformed to the image of Christ. The final arbiter of truth is Jesus > Christ. Private interpretation of Scripture is NOT ALLOWED. The reason we > discuss with one another is to circumvent private interpretation. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Lance wrote: > David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel > of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism that is being > addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of > David(that would be Linda), others say 'I am > of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David, sectarianism > does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks > of 'the good news of the gospel of Jesus' does he > not? Surely there is no final standard by which we > determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I > read you, is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH > on equal footing with David Miller. This is so is it not? No, it is not so. Paul was rebuking sectarianism. We should not have anyone here saying, "I am of David" (I do NOT believe this is Linda) nor others saying, "I am of Judy" (who says this?). We should all be seeking to be conformed to the image of Christ. The final arbiter of truth is Jesus Christ. Private interpretation of Scripture is NOT ALLOWED. The reason we discuss with one another is to circumvent private interpretation. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Must confess that I didn't have much clue about what Avram and Josef was trying to say. But seemingly this is another example of how tradition conflicts with or makes of no effect the truth of scripture. There is a very clear separation of sacred vs profane all through the scriptures and this is an area that Israel violated constantly - Will we or won't we learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6; Heb 4:3-6)? Therefore thus says the Lord, if thou return, then will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them (Jeremiah 15:19) Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 22:26) And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments, and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies, and they shall hallow my sabbaths. (Ezekiel 44:23) judyt On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:07:07 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Debbie] Yes, David, of course anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is to do it wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and my interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the same thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible and less oblique than, what I did), but if you follow us both out to the end it is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least, compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there is no sacred vs profaneb) Torah-study takes in all of lifeFrom: David Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to lineup with Biblical language.For example, you wrote:> The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post)> ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing> different things they didn't say the same thing; they said> complementary things.Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity ofspeech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, butat the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't saythe same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is thatpeople will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that arenot complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism ofour modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever theywant. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and berelevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that actuallyfits somewhere.It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurateof the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fittogether in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how wehave the same mind and how we do speak the same things. In fact, if someonewere to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for him and justifyhis teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Pauland misrepresented him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation inActs 21).Debbie wrote:> They certainly don't sound the same;They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a differentcontext. They do sound the same when they are fit together in a whole andunderstood in relationship to one another.Debbie wrote:> We can't use sameness as a necessary> condition of rightness. To me that seems> a scary direction to move in.Excellent point. This distinguishes dogma from analysis. Much ofChristianity has missed it in relying upon dogma and using sameness as acondition of rightness. Very excellent point.Peace be with you.David Miller.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Good reminder. Thanks Izzy On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:55:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Titus 3:1Remind them … 2to malign no one,to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 3For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. If we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each having different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each other even when we disagree. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie SawczakI may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we may as well not converse. From: Debbie Sawczak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite different things at times even when our utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move in. Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical things can never be a unit; it will always be a group of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for security.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
ShieldsFamily wrote: Titus 3:1Remind them … 2to malign no one,to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 3For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. If we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each having different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each other even when we disagree. Izzy But we have never done it that way. It defies TT tradition. Do you really think it might work? :-) Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Titus 3:1Remind them … 2to malign no one,to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 3For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. If we are one in Christ we will at least be united enough to avoid the behavior described above in Titus 3. We will be of one accord; each having different gifts and callings, but peaceably agreeable with each other even when we disagree. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:15 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! I may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we may as well not converse. -Original Message- From: Debbie Sawczak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! [Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite different things at times even when our utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move in. Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical things can never be a unit; it will always be a group of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for security.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
[Debbie] Yes, David, of course anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is to do it wrongly.A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and my interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the same thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible and less oblique than, what I did), but if you follow us both out to the end it is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least, compatibility--without sameness. Try it:a) there is no sacred vs profaneb) Torah-study takes in all of life-Original Message-From: David Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to lineup with Biblical language.For example, you wrote:> The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post)> ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing> different things they didn't say the same thing; they said> complementary things.Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul andJames did speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity ofspeech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, butat the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't saythe same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is thatpeople will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that arenot complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism ofour modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever theywant. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and berelevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that actuallyfits somewhere.It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurateof the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fittogether in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how wehave the same mind and how we do speak the same things. In fact, if someonewere to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for him and justifyhis teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Pauland misrepresented him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation inActs 21).Debbie wrote:> They certainly don't sound the same;They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a differentcontext. They do sound the same when they are fit together in a whole andunderstood in relationship to one another.Debbie wrote:> We can't use sameness as a necessary> condition of rightness. To me that seems> a scary direction to move in.Excellent point. This distinguishes dogma from analysis. Much ofChristianity has missed it in relying upon dogma and using sameness as acondition of rightness. Very excellent point.Peace be with you.David Miller.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Syntax=Private interpretation while Dogma=Community of believers IMO. TT abounds with the former with David Miller at the 'head of the class'. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 17, 2005 00:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! > Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to line > up with Biblical language. > > For example, you wrote: > > The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) > > ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing > > different things they didn't say the same thing; they said > > complementary things. > > Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul and > James did speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity of > speech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, but > at the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't say > the same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is that > people will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that are > not complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism of > our modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever they > want. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and be > relevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that actually > fits somewhere. > > It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurate > of the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fit > together in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how we > have the same mind and how we do speak the same things. In fact, if someone > were to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for him and justify > his teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Paul > and misrepresented him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation in > Acts 21). > > Debbie wrote: > > They certainly don't sound the same; > > They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a different > context. They do sound the same when they are fit together in a whole and > understood in relationship to one another. > > Debbie wrote: > > We can't use sameness as a necessary > > condition of rightness. To me that seems > > a scary direction to move in. > > Excellent point. This distinguishes dogma from analysis. Much of > Christianity has missed it in relying upon dogma and using sameness as a > condition of rightness. Very excellent point. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
David, we are! 'The good news of the gospel of Jesus' Is it not sectarianism that is being addressed in this passage? Some say 'I am of David(that would be Linda), others say 'I am of Judy' and so on. Indeed, David, sectarianianism does and must exist on TT. Even DaveH speaks of 'the good news of the gospel of Jesus' does he not? Surely there is no final standard by which we determine who is right? Private interpretation, as I read you, is the final arbiter.This would put DaveH on equal footing with David Miller. This is so is it not? - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 16, 2005 23:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! > John wrote: > > We will never have unity based > > upon "all saying the same thing " > > John, please do not overlook what I wrote in a previous post, which was: > > Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the > parts I have emphasized. Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we > all say the same thing? > > 1 Corinthians 1:10 > (10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that > YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but > that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME > JUDGMENT. > > I take 1 Cor. 1:10 as an axiom of truth concerning the kind of unity that > Jesus Christ expects from his followers. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
DAVEH: Does the NC allow for Jesus having a physical body of flesh and bones today? Gregory A. Hession J.D. wrote: The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly of nearly every bishop in the church, bathed in prayer, and intent on dealing with heresy which had attempted to demean the nature of Christ. I assume they got it right. Do you have some specific disagreements with some of its precepts? It isn't scripture, so I can understand your impulse to be wary. Gregory A. Hession J.D. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to line up with Biblical language. For example, you wrote: > The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) > ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing > different things they didn't say the same thing; they said > complementary things. Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul and James did speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity of speech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, but at the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't say the same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is that people will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that are not complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism of our modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever they want. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and be relevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that actually fits somewhere. It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurate of the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fit together in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how we have the same mind and how we do speak the same things. In fact, if someone were to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for him and justify his teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Paul and misrepresented him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation in Acts 21). Debbie wrote: > They certainly don't sound the same; They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a different context. They do sound the same when they are fit together in a whole and understood in relationship to one another. Debbie wrote: > We can't use sameness as a necessary > condition of rightness. To me that seems > a scary direction to move in. Excellent point. This distinguishes dogma from analysis. Much of Christianity has missed it in relying upon dogma and using sameness as a condition of rightness. Very excellent point. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
:) probably no need to
apologize..e.g., i write to the list sometimes the same way as you,
i.e., in a concatenating series..
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:27:03 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sorry to go on, but I feel the need to clarify just a tad more. I don't
mean to imply that I naively assume we all have the same big picture and all
essentially agree. I mean that we may have to do a lot more listening,
perspective-adjusting, weighing, and risking in order to recognize those
occasions when we do agree despite our saying what appear to be
quite different things.
-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:15
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
I
may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if
we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different
words), we may as well not converse.
-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
[Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is
important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post)
ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different
things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things.
They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had
doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way,
we here will seem to be saying quite different things at times even
when our utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they
necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of
rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move
in.
Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical
things can never be a unit; it will always be a group
of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged
like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one
thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does
the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it
talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is
how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting
God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for
security.
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:>Huh??? We will never have
unity based>upon "all saying the same thing "I
don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be
overstating your case. It seems to me that God does desire
for us to say the same thing. This does not mean that we
will all be robots that parrot each other. There is still
room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we
should embrace each other as speaking the same
thing.I do not believe I over state
anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the
above. I assume you agree with that
illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk
alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an
identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is
only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case
of some form of religious popery. In a practical
sense, I have no idea how this statement works:
There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in
doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same
thing. I would change this sentence to say:
There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in
doing so we should embrace each other's relationship with their Master
as per Romans 14:4. But, that's me.
John.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:04:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we may as well not converse. Amen to this. Let's see -- I truly think several on this site would be excellent spokesmen for the truth. We could select one. He/she would write and we could simply respond with "amen." No ad honominiomums, no ranker, no disagreement, no disuity, no nothin'. I's exceited. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Sorry
to go on, but I feel the need to clarify just a tad more. I don't mean to imply
that I naively assume we all have the same big picture and all essentially
agree. I mean that we may have to do a lot more listening,
perspective-adjusting, weighing, and risking in order to recognize those
occasions when we do agree despite our saying what appear to be quite
different things.
-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:15
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
I
may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if
we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different
words), we may as well not converse.
-Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Good News!
[Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important.
The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately
believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they
didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly
don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the
canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem
to be saying quite different things at times even when our utterances
fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use
sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary
direction to move in.
Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical
things can never be a unit; it will always be a group
of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged
like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one
thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does
the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it
talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is
how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting
God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for
security.
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote:>Huh??? We will never have
unity based>upon "all saying the same thing "I don't
disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating
your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say
the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots
that parrot each other. There is still room for us to
emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each
other as speaking the same thing.I do not
believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is
omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that
illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk
alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an
identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is
only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case
of some form of religious popery. In a practical
sense, I have no idea how this statement works:
There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing
so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing.
I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us
to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each
other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But,
that's me. John.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:04:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: this has a distinctly evangelical ring to it in a cultic environment Light shinning in the darkness?
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/16/2005 8:58:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, please do not overlook what I wrote in a previous post, which was: Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the parts I have emphasized. Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we all say the same thing? 1 Corinthians 1:10 (10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT. Well, ok David. But I am hoping that you will go and do likewise with my previous posting. I believe the biblical writer often wrote in absolutes for the sake of emphasis. I do the same as a parent "I want this room cleaned and I don't want to see it this way again." The fact is, the room will need to be revisited and Paul's advice, the only advice he could give under the circumstances, will not be fully complied with -- and I suggest that he knows this. That is why he wrote Romans 14, David. He knows there will be differences of opinion on matters of faith. Romans 14 is how one deals with those difference -- something that is not fully known (apparently) here on TT. At any rate -- the fact that we have Romans 14 , combined with the fact that we have no evidence that this advice was fully complied with is my "commentary." Add to Romans 14, I Cor 13:4ff. I give the same advice to troubled marrieds. strive to become one AND this is how you handle yourselves when this is not going to happen. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
..soundin' better and better:) On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:15:23 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we may as well not converse. -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! [Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite different things at times even when our utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move in. Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical things can never be a unit; it will always be a group of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for security. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote:>Huh??? We will never have unity based>upon "all saying the same thing "I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing.I do not believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, that's me. John.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I may have been guilty of stretching the Scriptural body analogy there. But if we really are going to say the same thing (even if in slightly different words), we may as well not converse. -Original Message-From: Debbie Sawczak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:10 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! [Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite different things at times even when our utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move in. Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical things can never be a unit; it will always be a group of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for security. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote:>Huh??? We will never have unity based>upon "all saying the same thing "I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing.I do not believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, that's me. John.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
this has a distinctly evangelical ring to it in a cultic environment On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:09:38 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite different things at times even when our utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move in. Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical things can never be a unit; it will always be a group of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for security. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote:>Huh??? We will never have unity based>upon "all saying the same thing "I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing.I do not believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, that's me. John.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
[Debbie] I don't agree with this either, and I think it is important. The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post) ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing different things they didn't say the same thing; they said complementary things. They certainly don't sound the same; if they did, Luther wouldn't have had doubts about the canonicity of James. And that's just it: in the same way, we here will seem to be saying quite different things at times even when our utterances fit into the same big picture. (Not that they necessarily do.) We can't use sameness as a necessary condition of rightness. To me that seems a scary direction to move in. Unity presupposes diversity. A group of n identical things can never be a unit; it will always be a group of n units, however tightly and pleasingly they are arranged like bricks in a wall. In order for a number of things to be one thing, they have to be different. Hence the body image. Not only does the foot do something different from the ear, but I bet if it talked, its account of things would be different! Part of our diversity is how we experience, see, and say things. And part of faith is trusting God for one another, and relinquishing the need to "match" for security. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:57 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote:>Huh??? We will never have unity based>upon "all saying the same thing "I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing.I do not believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, that's me. John.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
John wrote: > We will never have unity based > upon "all saying the same thing " John, please do not overlook what I wrote in a previous post, which was: Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the parts I have emphasized. Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we all say the same thing? 1 Corinthians 1:10 (10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT. I take 1 Cor. 1:10 as an axiom of truth concerning the kind of unity that Jesus Christ expects from his followers. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:52:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: >Huh??? We will never have unity based >upon "all saying the same thing " I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I do not believe I over state anything. My illustration of family unity is omitted from the above. I assume you agree with that illustration. If you are saying that God wants us to talk alike, come up with exactly the same conclusions, share in an identical theology -- I respond by saying that such is only possible with those who do not think for themselves are in the case of some form of religious popery. In a practical sense, I have no idea how this statement works: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. I would change this sentence to say: There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other's relationship with their Master as per Romans 14:4. But, that's me. John.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
what is (and is not) orthodox to you? On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:00:29 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I don't trust..orthodoxy to discern or to lead me to truth.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Greg wrote:
> The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly
> of nearly every bishop in the church, bathed in
> prayer, and intent on dealing with heresy which
> had attempted to demean the nature of Christ.
> I assume they got it right. Do you have some
> specific disagreements with some of its precepts?
Actually, the council of Nicea was not "multiyear." There is some dispute
about exactly when it began, but it certainly was not longer than three
months. The emperor was there only for two months. The number of bishops
was not from every church, but numbered about 300. Note also that while the
decision is said to have been unanimous, two bishops were removed for
refusing to accept the creed. :-)
The Nicean Creed was changed two times since that original council in 325
A.D. One of the changes added the word "filioque" to indicate that the Holy
Spirit proceeded from both the father and the son, rather than from just the
father. The addition of this one word caused a division between the Roman
Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
On TruthTalk, before you came aboard, there was some discussion about
whether or not the Son of God is eternally begotten or if he was begotten
when he was born of Mary. The Nicean Creed of 325 was changed in 381, and
this "eternally begotten" phrase was added. Not all churches quote this 381
version, but many do. At least one TruthTalk member considered Judy to be
departing from orthodox Christianity by not believing that Jesus is the
"eternally begotten Son" as indicated by this 381 version of the Creed.
Judy believes that the Logos was eternally with the Father, not begotten,
but always was, and that the Scriptural indications of his being "begotten"
refer to the Logos becoming flesh, the time when the Holy Spirit came over
Mary and created a child within her womb.
The Nicene Creed is kind of interesting when you consider unity. It's
initial construction spent a great deal of time arguing over a single letter
of a single word. That letter was the Greek letter Iota. So they wrangled
over a single Iota, and the result was separating the Arians from
Christianity, although that did not happen when the creed was first adopted.
No, instead the Arians came to power and the Trinitarians who succeeded in
keeping that iota out of the creed were banished right after the Nicene
Creed was written.
So the Nicene Creed has a history of dividing Christians over a single iota,
and over a single word ("the filioque"), and at least on TruthTalk, it has
caused division over the 381 A.D. addition of the unbiblical phrase,
"eternally begotten Son."
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Tradition is great for guidance, this is true, even though it's not Scripture. This is also what Greg said. It's good to get confirmation from you, however. Thanks. -- slade -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamilySent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 20.12Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! Greg, it’s great for guidance—just doesn’t carry the weight of scripture. IMO Izzy From: Gregory A. Hession J.D.Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 5:47 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before us. They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Greg, it’s great for guidance—just doesn’t carry the weight of scripture. IMO Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory A. Hession J.D. Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 5:47 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before us. They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood. Gregory A. Hession J.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Springfield, Mass. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:21 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy to discern or to lead me to truth. jht Same here Judy. Same here. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
John wrote: > Huh??? We will never have unity based > upon "all saying the same thing " I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but you might be overstating your case. It seems to me that God does desire for us to say the same thing. This does not mean that we will all be robots that parrot each other. There is still room for us to emphasize different things, but in doing so we should embrace each other as speaking the same thing. A good example of this is Paul and James. Paul emphasized justification by grace through faith apart from works while James emphasized justification by works and not by faith alone. Yet, they both accepted one another's teachings, even though they emphasized different things. In effect, they spoke the same thing, and this is abundantly clear when we read Acts 15 and see their complete agreement together, as well as Acts 21 and Paul's taking of the Nazarite vow. Please offer us some commentary on the following passage, especially the parts I have emphasized. Does it not teach us to have a unity whereby we all say the same thing? 1 Corinthians 1:10 (10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Thank you, Greg. This coincides with my understanding of 2 Peter 1:20 -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Gregory A. Hession J.D.Sent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 18.47To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before us. They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood. Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, Mass. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:21 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy to discern or to lead me to truth. jht Same here Judy. Same here. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
The great cloud of witnesses referred to in the book of
Hebrews are OT Saints; I'm in agreement with and will submit myself to all
through whom I hear the voice of the Chief Shepherd. Which "great saints"
who were martyrs do you refer to here Gregory? PS I'm not alone and
adrift. Believe it or not there are others who believe as I do.
jht
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:47:25 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the
elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our
own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before
us. They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before
rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to
these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood.
Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield,
Mass.
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:21
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good
News!
So No, I don't trust creeds or
orthodoxy to discern or to lead me to truth.
jht
Same here Judy. Same
here.
Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
You may want to re-consider rejecting the wisdom of the elders as a practice. Otherwise, we are just adrift in the sea of our own prejudices, unrestrained by the great cloud of witnesses that went before us. They left a great legacy, and we should be careful before rejecting it. It seems vain to do so, since who are WE, compared to these great saints, many of whom paid for their truth in blood. Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, Mass. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:21 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Good News! So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy to discern or to lead me to truth. jht Same here Judy. Same here. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy to discern or to lead me to truth. jht Same here Judy. Same here. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I don't know about the "bathed in prayer" part because they were constantly banishing each other. It was the beginning of the Church/State merger era when (because of Constantine) the Church began to wield the power of the heathen state which was never the will of the Lord who said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars " "My Kingdom is not of this world..." and so began the most shameful era in the annals of Church history. As for the hereticks. How was Arius any worse than those proclaiming orthodoxy? You see the fruit of orthodoxy in the RCC of today with all of it's blasphemy and error and in the bloodshed and hatred between Serbs and Croats during WW2 and to this present day. So No, I don't trust creeds or orthodoxy to discern or to lead me to truth. jht On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:02:30 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly of nearly every bishop in the church, bathed in prayer, and intent on dealing with heresy which had attempted to demean the nature of Christ. I assume they got it right. Do you have some specific disagreements with some of its precepts? It isn't scripture, so I can understand your impulse to be wary. From: Judy Taylor Can you be sure the Jesus of the apostles is the same Jesus as the Nicene Creed? jht On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:28:27 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy: I agree that we cannot have a mealy-mouthed, squishy, Barney the Dinosaur, We-are-the-World, Everything-Is-Beautiful Jesus. Let's assume that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus of the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of God, light of true light, The Jesus testified to by the Apostles, martyrs, and saints in the church through the ages, and the Jesus who is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess he is Lord. Good enuf? On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Unity is the show of love DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christ we are saying the same thing. It is not a rational or scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about it. I don't know that this is true Gregory; the question I have is "who is this Christ, who is Jesus?" He appears to be chameleon like amongst those who profess to be His disciples, and He is the main issue - would you agree? He is the Truth and on this list there is little agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all kinds of different ways on TT. He is the Life, what kind of life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need - right now we are not all saying the same thing. jht In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
The council of Nicea was a multiyear assembly of nearly every bishop in the church, bathed in prayer, and intent on dealing with heresy which had attempted to demean the nature of Christ. I assume they got it right. Do you have some specific disagreements with some of its precepts? It isn't scripture, so I can understand your impulse to be wary. Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, Mass. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Can you be sure the Jesus of the apostles is the same Jesus as the Nicene Creed? jht On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:28:27 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy: I agree that we cannot have a mealy-mouthed, squishy, Barney the Dinosaur, We-are-the-World, Everything-Is-Beautiful Jesus. Let's assume that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus of the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of God, light of true light, The Jesus testified to by the Apostles, martyrs, and saints in the church through the ages, and the Jesus who is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess he is Lord. Good enuf? On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Unity is the show of love DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christ we are saying the same thing. It is not a rational or scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about it. I don't know that this is true Gregory; the question I have is "who is this Christ, who is Jesus?" He appears to be chameleon like amongst those who profess to be His disciples, and He is the main issue - would you agree? He is the Truth and on this list there is little agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all kinds of different ways on TT. He is the Life, what kind of life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need - right now we are not all saying the same thing. jht In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Can you be sure the Jesus of the apostles is the same Jesus as the Nicene Creed? jht On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:28:27 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy: I agree that we cannot have a mealy-mouthed, squishy, Barney the Dinosaur, We-are-the-World, Everything-Is-Beautiful Jesus. Let's assume that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus of the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of God, light of true light, The Jesus testified to by the Apostles, martyrs, and saints in the church through the ages, and the Jesus who is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess he is Lord. Good enuf? On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Unity is the show of love DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christ we are saying the same thing. It is not a rational or scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about it. I don't know that this is true Gregory; the question I have is "who is this Christ, who is Jesus?" He appears to be chameleon like amongst those who profess to be His disciples, and He is the main issue - would you agree? He is the Truth and on this list there is little agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all kinds of different ways on TT. He is the Life, what kind of life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need - right now we are not all saying the same thing. jht In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Judy: I agree that we cannot have a mealy-mouthed, squishy, Barney the Dinosaur, We-are-the-World, Everything-Is-Beautiful Jesus. Let's assume that I am referring to the full-orbed Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus of the Nicene Creed, begotten before all ages, God of God, light of true light, The Jesus testified to by the Apostles, martyrs, and saints in the church through the ages, and the Jesus who is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess he is Lord. Good enuf? Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, Mass. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Unity is the show of love DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christ we are saying the same thing. It is not a rational or scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about it. I don't know that this is true Gregory; the question I have is "who is this Christ, who is Jesus?" He appears to be chameleon like amongst those who profess to be His disciples, and He is the main issue - would you agree? He is the Truth and on this list there is little agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all kinds of different ways on TT. He is the Life, what kind of life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need - right now we are not all saying the same thing. jht In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:47:19 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Unity is the show of love DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christ we are saying the same thing. It is not a rational or scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about it. I don't know that this is true Gregory; the question I have is "who is this Christ, who is Jesus?" He appears to be chameleon like amongst those who profess to be His disciples, and He is the main issue - would you agree? He is the Truth and on this list there is little agreement about what truth consists of. He is the Way, you will hear all kinds of different ways on TT. He is the Life, what kind of life? Physical or spiritual, sometimes it's hard to tell. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi "let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" - this is the kind of unity we need - right now we are not all saying the same thing. jht In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Unity is the show of love DESPITE not saying the same thing in the theological details, because on the main issue of following Christ we are saying the same thing. It is not a rational or scriptural goal to aspire to get everyone to agree with ones self. The goal, rather, should be to live a life of grace and mercy in Christ: that is what is required. Then, it won't matter if a brother disagrees, because we won't be in the frame of mind to be disagreeable about it. Gregory A. Hession J.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]Springfield, Mass. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 3:53 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/15/2005 2:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt Huh??? We will never have unity based upon "all saying the same thing " Unity is based upon each recognizing the servant/Master relationship and giving honor and space to that circumstance. A practice of the principles of Romans 14 (esp. v 4) would solve nearly all of the ranker problems on this forum.. But that ain't going to happen either. I could be wrong --- but probably not. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/15/2005 1:01:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ShieldsFamily wrote: David, I must SO agree with JD and you regarding the âwooing of the Holy Spiritâ. I remember being about twelve years old and having such a hunger to know God. I self-consciously confided in a kind neighbor lady that I wished more than anything that I had a Bible or a picture of Jesus. She kindly gave me her little catholic catechism, not having a Bible herself. Where did I get this lonely ache inside to know Him, other than through His Spirit hovering over me? He hovers still over each of us on TTâwhy else would a sane person waste time here being insulted??? We seek Him still in the presence of one another. And we seek to share the Jesus that we know. Izzy Miller and Bill Taylor -- JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:46:55 -0500 "Gregory A. Hession J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dear Judy: I just arrived here, so I should be very circumspect. However, to answer your first question below, many of the posts I have read appear to come from angry people, or people who are so painfully insecure that they must make everyone conform to their doctrinal purity. jt: You may be seeing with clearer eyesight than those of us who have been around for a while Gregory. An internet forum is an artificial venue, where the others cannot always see the real soul. One can hide many besetting sins behind a veneer of spiritual talk. But, if someone posts angry screechy screeds, it does reveal the likely presence of that sin. jt: So true but if we are not deceiving ourselves we should be aware that we can hide nothing from the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:13) and tearing up other believers is as bad online as it is in a church setting. On your last point, there should not be enmity and strife in the brotherhood. See Ps. 133. I have a problem with those who disrupt that. jt: Three hits Gregory - Unity will happen when we are all saying the same thing which unfortunately is not a reality right now. We used to sing Ps 133 at a Church I went to.. Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity... Amen!! judyt From: Judy Taylor Good Morning Gregory and welcome to TT: You write: One of the most consistently frustrating things about Christians is that we seem far more keen on making sure everyone around us is properly beat over the head with the truth, often with bile and anger, than in living out the life exemplified by Christ, with mercy and love. Do you perceive that this goes on here Gregory? That is, beating people over the head with truth accompanied with bile and anger? Look at the beatitudes. Truth is important, but it comes to people who have ears to hear. Our job is less to demand that they see the truth, than to LIVE the truth. The great saints down through history saw this as job one - becoming like Christ inside, so that their lives radiated his love and wisdom. How does one LIVE the truth on an internet list Gregory? How is one to radiate this love and wisdom by email other than through words. Actually what is in a person's heart ultimately becomes evident because it proceeds out of the mouth/through the keyboard. Judging the motives of others is also an ungodly trait and a lot of that goes on here. James was very clear that wisdom is linked to love and holiness: "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.. . . " Yes and James also defines the two kinds of wisdom it is possible to walk in "that which comes from above and is pure and peaceable and full of good fruit or that which is earthly sensual and demonic" I'm sure you will find some of both on TT if you stay long enough. The entire book of Jamesis a rebuke to those who think KNOWING the truth is more important than DOING the truth. And the second course of the meal is Phillipians, where radiating the love which only comes from devotion to Christ is preeminent, not how well we have become little truth Nazis. IYO Gregory does loving God's Word make one a little "truth Nazi?" Then, the third course is I John, where the topic is brought to a supreme and sublime offering unequaled in any book ever written, in my opinion. When we stand in front of the dread judgment seat, the test is not how well we shoved every abstruse point of theology down the throats of the ignorant, but how we lived the great truths we already know, and taught the others with mercy and peace, so as to edify the listener, not stir up emnity. True, but if you will note the experience of God's messengers of truth through scripture Gregory you will see how their message always stirred up emnity and strive. God's people killed his prophets and everywhere Paul and Silas went there were riots. Jesus Himself had to hide out and pass through at least one crowd who wanted to throw him off a cliff (a crowd of God's covenant people no less). I'm as against "abstruse theology" as anyone and am aware that the servant of the Lord must not strive. However, this is an open list full of professing believers who love God and it follows that they shou
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Praise Him, Hallelujah - Thanks for sharing Sister Izzy, I'm with you and whoever else wants to join in ... judyt On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:02:21 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I just have to share with you how JOYFULL I am in the Lord right now—I am OVERCOME with a Spirit of PRAISE I cannot stop the flow of tears of praise!!! I can’t stop sobbing with joy!!! HOW I BLESS THE NAME OF THE LORD. HOW I THANK AND PRAISE HIM FOR CONDESCENDING TO BE AMONG HIS CREATION!!! PRAISE THE NAME OF THE LORD!! Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
I just have to share with you how JOYFULL I am in the Lord right now—I am OVERCOME with a Spirit of PRAISE I cannot stop the flow of tears of praise!!! I can’t stop sobbing with joy!!! HOW I BLESS THE NAME OF THE LORD. HOW I THANK AND PRAISE HIM FOR CONDESCENDING TO BE AMONG HIS CREATION!!! PRAISE THE NAME OF THE LORD!! Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:30:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote: >... it greatly saddens me to see so little interest in >God's Word. People are so excited over the prospect >of hearing the words of Athanasius, Polyani, or whoever >their latest theological fad is, just like the people Paul >encountered at Mars Hill in Athens. But I see none of >this happening when it comes to God's Word which is >labelled "scripture bombing" and received as "Ho Hum" >or else mixed with the words of theologians and distorted >until it is unrecognizable. You are quite right about this. It bothers me too how some dismiss the quoting of Scripture with one line phrases like "proof-texting" or "don't ignore context" or "Scripture bombs" or that the passage is figurative, etc. They never seem to explain the proper context or teach the meaning of the passage. It is always simply a discrediting to favor the traditions and teachings of men over the Scritpures themselves. It is exactly the same problem Jesus faced with the scribes (scholars) and Pharisees and Saduccees of his day. Peace be with you. David Miller. Oh, you are preaching to the choir again, Brother! Preach!!! Izzy I love it. When you are right, you know it. When you are wrong, you are still right. Awesome. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/15/2005 11:36:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory A. Hession J.D. wrote: One of the most consistently frustrating things about Christians is that we seem far more keen on making sure everyone around us is properly beat over the head with the truth, often with bile and anger, than in living out the life exemplified by Christ, with mercy and love. Look at the beatitudes. Truth is important, but it comes to people who have ears to hear. Our job is less to demand that they see the truth, than to LIVE the truth. The great saints down through history saw this as job one - becoming like Christ inside, so that their lives radiated his love and wisdom. James was very clear that wisdom is linked to love and holiness: "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.. . . " The entire book of Jamesis a rebuke to those who think KNOWING the truth is more important than DOING the truth. And the second course of the meal is Phillipians, where radiating the love which only comes from devotion to Christ is preeminent, not how well we have become little truth Nazis. Then, the third course is I John, where the topic is brought to a supreme and sublime offering unequaled in any book ever written, in my opinion. When we stand in front of the dread judgment seat, the test is not how well we shoved every abstruse point of theology down the throats of the ignorant, but how we lived the great truths we already know, and taught the others with mercy and peace, so as to edify the listener, not stir up emnity. Gregory A. Hession J.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Springfield, Mass. Well said, Greg. I look forward to hearing more from you.Terry Ditto -- JD JD is my name while JD is your claim !! Good to have you here. Great post.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory A. Hession J.D. Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 2:36 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! I am a lawyer, for better or for worse. It is a constant matter of repentance for me to see how wicked my words are. I believe that it is possible for a Christian to be a lawyer, and to keep his soul. However, just as Jesus despaired of a rich man getting into the Kingdom, it ain't easy for a lawyer unless he repents and turns away from much of what is commonly done by most lawyers. Gregory A. Hession J.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Springfield, Mass. I praise God for you beautiful testimony, Greg. One of our dearest Believing friends is a lawyer also. What a dear. (We’ve also been on the ugly end of the type of unrepentant lawyers you describe—it is painful to recall. May God remember for us.) Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Greg wrote: > When we stand in front of the dread judgment > seat, the test is not how well we shoved every > abstruse point of theology down the throats of > the ignorant, but how we lived the great truths > we already know, and taught the others with > mercy and peace, so as to edify the listener, > not stir up emnity [sic]. Excellent. So true. Thanks for reminding us. We must all keep this in mind. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!
In a message dated 1/15/2005 11:36:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you. They accused Jesus of this, so it is expected that his disciples also would be accused of this. The disciple is not above his master. I take this comment of yours as a compliment and wear it as a badge of honor. :-)
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Correction performed off-forum by the [struggling] moderator. -Original Message- From: David Miller Sent: Saturday, 15 January, 2005 15.30 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Please stop with the ad hominem attacks, and speak for yourself. I see plenty of love in what Judy writes. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
ROFL! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:34 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Thanks for your 2 cents Jeff, I'll have to pray about learning from your example. Grace and Peace, Judy jeff in red From: Judy Taylor Thanks for taking the time to send the definition Kay; so Slade wants me to leave my vigor and aggressive energy elsewhere? Would he rather I were "lukewarm or cold?" How is it so unmerciful to deal with the truth? because you are mean-hearted and mean-spirited. In short, nobody sees any love in what you write. you are mean and cover it with scripture. pathetic!
RE: [TruthTalk] Good News!
Don’t worry, Jeff. I think Greg is probably able to wrestle words/ideas capably w/o taking personal offense. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:32 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News! Well Judy, I just said that you were mean. your first response to Greg is exactly what I meant.
