RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Hi Izzy, Just so you aren't holding your breath I will not be outlining each post where you have failed to see how you are not participating in edification or even contributing in a meaningful way to the forum. When there is an elephant in the room either you can see it (as a few of us have commented to you) or you deny its existence. I am not the Spirit of conviction. In times past when people (myself included) have listed the ways others have manipulated, bullied, torn down, etc those people have always responded in the negative. They feel (and probably justly so) attacked. Basically they say, "So what?" They then go on to defend their beliefs. Case in point: Terry stepped over the line yesterday. Although he now admits he should have used another word (after you reveled in his opinion) he then goes on to give off as much attitude as possible. He pulls a popular tactic here of displacing his anger to others. Hence, the 'you guys must have pride/pms' comment, the 'you two are indignant today (i.e. you two seem overly angry and sensitive - another common attack on TT), the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc. Was there any change in Terry's position even though he was called on it and rebuked? Of course not. Would there be any change in your behaviour if I pointed out the countless amount of times you have written sarcastic and degrading one or two line posts? Nope. The only hope for change would be if David Miller did a post to you asking you to take your position on this forum more seriously. David is a person you obviously respect/adore. The rest of us do not hold a loved/respected position and thus will not have an effect on your behaviour. It is kind of like when I think what I said is fine and then my wife turns to me and says that I was acting like a jerk. That will wake me up a bit. I respect my wife's opinion and will consider it even though I may not feel that she was right. For the record, she almost always is. What you need is for someone you love and respect to tell you what Lance, John, and I have been saying lately. Until then nothing will happen. Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:05 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan, I have looked back over my posts of the last few days and fail to “apprehend” where I have written things to tear down others. Would you kindly post such and tell me how it tears down? I would appreciate it. Izzy PS I think what you see as sarcastic is what I view as humor? Is humor a common thing in Canada? We have one member (Izzy) who only writes shallow, sarcastic replies designed to tear others down. Jonathan This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Jonathan wrote: ... the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc. If you go back and look, I think you will find that YOU changed the meaning of Terry's post. I do not remember him using the word "liar." He said that perhaps it would have been better to use the word "lie." In other words, his focus was upon what was said and not who said it. This is proper TruthTalk debate. We attack IDEAS not the people who say them. In any case, I would not agree with Terry changing his words from dog doo doo to lie. He felt that he caused the foul language by you to be posted to the list, but I think calling it "dog doo doo" would be a little less offensive than "lie" because "lie" implies an intent to deceive (which can be perceived as a personal attack). Terry was just trying to communicate that he did not have much respect for the concept being expressed. That means that whoever holds that concept might try harder at explaining it if it is really a good truth that needs to be heard. Jonathan wrote: The only hope for change would be if David Miller did a post to you asking you to take your position on this forum more seriously. I personally believe that Izzy has crossed the line many times. If I were moderator, I would be correcting it each time it happened. Many on TruthTalk know that years ago when I moderated the list, I did this often, and I took a lot of heat for it. Izzy, I do think you should consider your past one-line attacks and reconsider how helpful they are to discussion. Remember the rule: attack concepts not people. Challenge one another with the goal of leading all of us to a more enlightening position. 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] Tearing down?
DAVID MILLER I personally believe that Izzy has crossed the line many times. If I were moderator, I would be correcting it each time it happened. Many on TruthTalk know that years ago when I moderated the list, I did this often, and I took a lot of heat for it. Izzy, I do think you should consider your past one-line attacks and reconsider how helpful they are to discussion. Remember the rule: attack concepts not people. Challenge one another with the goal of leading all of us to a more enlightening position. SLADE I must alter my "lack" of moderation, I guess. -- "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] Tearing down?
ï moderatg the list requires some wisdom--like why quibble with this [issue?] while you say nothin' abot, e.g., Izzy constantly slanderg moderates (both politcl and theolgicl) as left-wingrs, etc; she plainly lied in her characterzation of Ryrie--you postd zero abt/to her! On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:57:29 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>I think calling it "dog doo doo" would be a little less >offensive than "lie" because "lie" implies an intent to deceive
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
I would like to see very little from Slade as Moderator on this list. I would prefer that the list was peer moderated. When we (including me) step over the line I expect to hear about it from our/my peers. In times past Lance has often said that I could have constructed a post differently, or that it would have been wiser if I had left certain parts out. You wouldn’t know it from Lance’s one line posts but he can be quite blunt J JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? moderatg the list requires some wisdom--like why quibble with this [issue?] while you say nothin' abot, e.g., Izzy constantly slanderg moderates (both politcl and theolgicl) as left-wingrs, etc; she plainly lied in her characterzation of Ryrie--you postd zero abt/to her! On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:57:29 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I think calling it "dog doo doo" would be a little less >offensive than "lie" because "lie" implies an intent to deceive --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
A heavily moderated list becomes one man's empire. I would not hang around here if this list became heavily moderated. We are all adults. The moderator (in my opinion) should only enter the fray when it is absolutely called for. This list has been lightly moderated for the last 8-12 months. The best way to moderate in my opinion is to constantly lead by example by publishing strong, well defined, biblical posts. By doing this it leads us back to our purpose on this forum. This would be an apt description of Slade. The better the post is developed the better the chance that discussion and not parody, slander, or ignorance will take place. JBH -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? DAVID MILLER I personally believe that Izzy has crossed the line many times. If I were moderator, I would be correcting it each time it happened. Many on TruthTalk know that years ago when I moderated the list, I did this often, and I took a lot of heat for it. Izzy, I do think you should consider your past one-line attacks and reconsider how helpful they are to discussion. Remember the rule: attack concepts not people. Challenge one another with the goal of leading all of us to a more enlightening position. SLADE I must alter my "lack" of moderation, I guess. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 -- "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] Tearing down?
THANK YOU JONATHAN This is how I would prefer to do the "job." This is how we should to do the "job." -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Friday, 19 November, 2004 21.01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? A heavily moderated list becomes one man's empire. I would not hang around here if this list became heavily moderated. We are all adults. The moderator (in my opinion) should only enter the fray when it is absolutely called for. This list has been lightly moderated for the last 8-12 months. The best way to moderate in my opinion is to constantly lead by example by publishing strong, well defined, biblical posts. By doing this it leads us back to our purpose on this forum. This would be an apt description of Slade. The better the post is developed the better the chance that discussion and not parody, slander, or ignorance will take place. JBH -- "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] Tearing down?
ï I haven't quibbled over this issue. I've included my original post to show I quibbled over the use of the tongue to tear down and destroy. As far as moderation, you're correct in your assessment. I have not monitored. I asked you to not just say "myth" and to explain yourself, and what did you reply? a colored page with NO RESPONSE. What is a person to do with that? A moderator should have an inkling of respect or authority, and you gave none. In all the time I have been on TruthTalk, I have seen NO MODERATION. We've had people hatefully blasting people without having bridge or reins installed. Do I need to name names? This is my second time on TruthTalk, and the behavior was identical the first time. The names are different but that familiar hateful spirit is the same. In fact, I find it amazing how the words, phrases, and tactics are IDENTICAL. If I had my way (if I allowed the flesh to rule), I would ban anyone who have this spirit... BUT... as the New Moderator, I feel it necessary to employ a certain amount of Juris Prudence. (This is the concept that decisions made before need to be considered in future decisions. Therefore, if language I would spank my children for has been allowed in the past, I must therefore allow it now.) I was one such person accused to robbing a "brother." Now, let me ask you, Gary, and David Miller a question... since you are the people (thus far) with complaints. HOW do you want me to moderate the list? I've looked into the list tools and there is no way for me to peruse [specific] people's emails BEFORE they're posted, so I can't do that. I would love to be able to put some people on that kind of moderated status to "star-out portions of a post" or "delete a vicious post." -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, 19 November, 2004 18.20To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? moderatg the list requires some wisdom--like why quibble with this [issue?] while you say nothin' abot, e.g., Izzy constantly slanderg moderates (both politcl and theolgicl) as left-wingrs, etc; she plainly lied in her characterzation of Ryrie--you postd zero abt/to her! On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:57:29 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>I think calling it "dog doo doo" would be a little less >offensive than "lie" because "lie" implies an intent to deceive --- Begin Message --- My wife called me yesterday on my way to school and told me about this exchange (with the "S" word). She was rolling on the floor, so to speak. I was afraid I would return this morning to the disappearance/banning/crucifixion of Jonathan Hughes. Jonathan... you're still here, right? I do not believe swear words are a matter of holiness (I have the same view of cigarettes smoking as well). I also do not see the very occasional use of swear words as an issue of rebuke or spanking from the moderator... especially when I can understand what preempted the post. I hope you all read Jonathan's post and I hope it sank in. He has some real concerns regarding TruthTalk and this is why it has the nicknames TrashTalk and TwistTruth. When Scripture warns us to guard our tongues, I do not believe the passage specifically refers to the use of expletives; I think the passage specifically speak about the use of the tongue to tear down and destroy... exactly what Jonathan is complaining of. Let me quote Jonathan (who, in my opinion, gives three examples of unclean speech)... shallow, sarcastic replies designed to tear others down logic bullying tactics compares other people's [posts] as dogs**t and myth Our loved Bill Taylor spoke wisdom in his return address and what he said is true. We need to be building THE kingdom, not using the wreckage to construct our own. -- slade (dare I say... as moderator?) --- End Message ---
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Jonathan in Green. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan wrote: > ... the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc. David: If you go back and look, I think you will find that YOU changed the meaning of Terry's post. I do not remember him using the word "liar." He said that perhaps it would have been better to use the word "lie." In other words, his focus was upon what was said and not who said it. This is proper TruthTalk debate. We attack IDEAS not the people who say them. Jonathan: There are a few things one can say here. To tell a lie is to be a liar. To believe a lie is not. So Terry says that next time he sees a lie on the list he will call it a lie. The implication is that I am telling a lie, not that I believe a lie. You will see that John took this the same way I did when he posted how the difference between doggy doo doo and liar is not a beneficial one. Lance also responded by prefacing his next post to Terry as the ‘liar’ responds. When three people see something I would suggest that ‘liar’ would be an appropriate translation for what Terry was attempting to say. Unless he clarifies the point we are at a standstill. And in fact, we should just leave the whole episode behind and go forward. Jonathan continues: Secondly, I do not think we are on TruthTalk to debate or attack anything. I do believe you think that Truthtalk is the proper forum for this. Our example is a God who claimed victory in weakness on the cross, not through attacking. A debate or attack implicates the outcome of a winner. We are not here to be winners. I believe you inherit this from your scientific background. In science we have objects. In order to ‘know’ them we must master them, reduce them to their most common elements, to humiliate them. Mastery over an object belongs only in science. When people become objects mastery should go out the window. Let me give an example. I can know things about my wife; her height, weight, colour of eyes etc. But the only way I can actually know her is by being changed by her. In order to do that I have to become vulnerable and accept her. On this forum the only time we will actually begin to know each other is if we become changed in the process of working out our relationships. John is an excellent example of this. He has come to know Lance and Bill by being changed by them. This involves a great deal of intimacy that the scientific method lacks. What I would beg of you is that you drop the debate/attack ideas thing and move on to intimacy with those on this forum. Take down the wall of logic and wrestle with the persons here. When this is done the well laid out argument becomes beneficial and people will begin to ‘hear’ you. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
ï myth (zero posts'd verify this) On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:21:38 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: As far as moderation, you're correct in your assessment. I have not monitored.
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Izzy in red. Hi Izzy, Just so you aren't holding your breath I will not be outlining each post where you have failed to see how you are not participating in edification or even contributing in a meaningful way to the forum. Oh, gosh, I thought sure you’d make a career of it! Or were you not able to find any? When there is an elephant in the room either you can see it (as a few of us have commented to you) or you deny its existence. I am not the Spirit of conviction. In times past when people (myself included) have listed the ways others have manipulated, bullied, torn down, etc those people have always responded in the negative. They feel (and probably justly so) attacked. Basically they say, "So what?" They then go on to defend their beliefs. Case in point: Terry stepped over the line yesterday. Actually I don’t believe he did. I pointed out that the BIBLE uses worse words than that; and it is a holy book. I think Terry has just been bullied by the Left side of the forum. Although he now admits he should have used another word (after you reveled in his opinion) he then goes on to give off as much attitude as possible. He pulls a popular tactic here of displacing his anger to others. Hence, the 'you guys must have pride/pms' comment, the 'you two are indignant today (i.e. you two seem overly angry and sensitive - another common attack on TT), the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc. Was there any change in Terry's position even though he was called on it and rebuked? Of course not. Would there be any change in your behaviour if I pointed out the countless amount of times you have written sarcastic and degrading one or two line posts? Nope. The only hope for change would be if David Miller did a post to you asking you to take your position on this forum more seriously. David is a person you obviously respect/adore. 1. To worship as God or a god. 2. To regard with deep, often rapturous love. See Synonyms at revere1. 3. To like very much: adores mink coats. Only in the 3rd definition of the word, please. To imply otherwise is insulting. The rest of us do not hold a loved/respected position and thus will not have an effect on your behaviour. Loved, yes. Respected opinions; not always. It is kind of like when I think what I said is fine and then my wife turns to me and says that I was acting like a jerk. That will wake me up a bit. I respect my wife's opinion and will consider it even though I may not feel that she was right. For the record, she almost always is. What you need is for someone you love and respect to tell you what Lance, John, and I have been saying lately. Until then nothing will happen. Well, if you can’t find anything I guess it isn’t there. I couldn’t find anything either. I think you just don’t like my viewpoints, so you accuse me of beating people down. (I have noted you being a bit hostile from time to time, however.) So, I’ll try to be more cautious in the future for your sensitivity’s sake. Are we now all going to start pointing out when someone is “beating down” someone? What the heck does that mean, exactly, anyway? Izzy Jonathan Hughes
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
myth (no evidence such a category exists--it's a pejorative construct rootd in radicl consrvatv bias) On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:58:48 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy in red. . I think Terry has just been bullied by the Left side of the forum.
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Okay, G, no need to pile on. We aren’t playing “Airplane” here. Iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? moderatg the list requires some wisdom--like why quibble with this [issue?] while you say nothin' abot, e.g., Izzy constantly slanderg moderates (both politcl and theolgicl) as left-wingrs, etc; she plainly lied in her characterzation of Ryrie--you postd zero abt/to her! On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:57:29 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I think calling it "dog doo doo" would be a little less >offensive than "lie" because "lie" implies an intent to deceive
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan wrote: > ... the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc. If you go back and look, I think you will find that YOU changed the meaning of Terry's post. I do not remember him using the word "liar." He said that perhaps it would have been better to use the word "lie." In other words, his focus was upon what was said and not who said it. This is proper TruthTalk debate. We attack IDEAS not the people who say them. In any case, I would not agree with Terry changing his words from dog doo doo to lie. He felt that he caused the foul language by you to be posted to the list, but I think calling it "dog doo doo" would be a little less offensive than "lie" because "lie" implies an intent to deceive (which can be perceived as a personal attack). Terry was just trying to communicate that he did not have much respect for the concept being expressed. That means that whoever holds that concept might try harder at explaining it if it is really a good truth that needs to be heard. Jonathan wrote: > The only hope for change would be if David Miller did > a post to you asking you to take your position on this > forum more seriously. I personally believe that Izzy has crossed the line many times. If I were moderator, I would be correcting it each time it happened. Many on TruthTalk know that years ago when I moderated the list, I did this often, and I took a lot of heat for it. Izzy, I do think you should consider your past one-line attacks and reconsider how helpful they are to discussion. Remember the rule: attack concepts not people. Challenge one another with the goal of leading all of us to a more enlightening position. Peace be with you. David Miller. Okay—I’ll try to notice if I’m “attacking” someone (specifically). Iz
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
I can’t even finish this one…I’m cracking up that we are having continual and serious discussions about “doggie doo-doo”. Somebody help me stop laughing!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan in Green. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan wrote: > ... the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc. David: If you go back and look, I think you will find that YOU changed the meaning of Terry's post. I do not remember him using the word "liar." He said that perhaps it would have been better to use the word "lie." In other words, his focus was upon what was said and not who said it. This is proper TruthTalk debate. We attack IDEAS not the people who say them. Jonathan: There are a few things one can say here. To tell a lie is to be a liar. To believe a lie is not. So Terry says that next time he sees a lie on the list he will call it a lie. The implication is that I am telling a lie, not that I believe a lie. You will see that John took this the same way I did when he posted how the difference between doggy doo doo and liar is not a beneficial one. Lance also responded by prefacing his next post to Terry as the ‘liar’ responds. When three people see something I would suggest that ‘liar’ would be an appropriate translation for what Terry was attempting to say. Unless he clarifies the point we are at a standstill. And in fact, we should just leave the whole episode behind and go forward. Jonathan continues: Secondly, I do not think we are on TruthTalk to debate or attack anything. I do believe you think that Truthtalk is the proper forum for this. Our example is a God who claimed victory in weakness on the cross, not through attacking. A debate or attack implicates the outcome of a winner. We are not here to be winners. I believe you inherit this from your scientific background. In science we have objects. In order to ‘know’ them we must master them, reduce them to their most common elements, to humiliate them. Mastery over an object belongs only in science. When people become objects mastery should go out the window. Let me give an example. I can know things about my wife; her height, weight, colour of eyes etc. But the only way I can actually know her is by being changed by her. In order to do that I have to become vulnerable and accept her. On this forum the only time we will actually begin to know each other is if we become changed in the process of working out our relationships. John is an excellent example of this. He has come to know Lance and Bill by being changed by them. This involves a great deal of intimacy that the scientific method lacks. What I would beg of you is that you drop the debate/attack ideas thing and move on to intimacy with those on this forum. Take down the wall of logic and wrestle with the persons here. When this is done the well laid out argument becomes beneficial and people will begin to ‘hear’ you. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 11/19/2004 6:23:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, let me ask you, Gary, and David Miller a question... since you are the people (thus far) with complaints. HOW do you want me to moderate the list? I've looked into the list tools and there is no way for me to peruse [specific] people's emails BEFORE they're posted, so I can't do that. I would love to be able to put some people on that kind of moderated status to "star-out portions of a post" or "delete a vicious post." Actuslly --- a word from the moderator, ex-cathedral, should be enough. When Perry spoke, the list complied. ALL OF US SHOULD GIVE SALUTE to the moderator. If he says "move on" OR "knock it off," that should be the end of the matter. Just let us know, Slade, in that particualr email that you are functioning as the Moderator. There should be no discussion -- only blind obedience. Since you are obviously not one to throw your weight around, we should respect the assignment given to you. Do we all agree? John
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
What is the politically correct/Christian love alternative to “Left” , please? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? myth (no evidence such a category exists--it's a pejorative construct rootd in radicl consrvatv bias) On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:58:48 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy in red. . I think Terry has just been bullied by the Left side of the forum.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
No problem, John, givn some impartiality, balance, relevant, even proactive, input, etc. -- 600 more rules arn't necessary:) On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:33:50 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||..we should respect the assignment given [slade]. Do we..agree?John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
myth [supply evidence that politics/political correctness is your only (non-NT) prerequisite] On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:39:08 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What is the politically correct/Christian love alternative to “Left” , please? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Jonathan in Green. Jonathan: There are a few things one can say here. To tell a lie is to be a liar. To believe a lie is not. So Terry says that next time he sees a lie on the list he will call it a lie. The implication is that I am telling a lie, not that I believe a lie. You will see that John took this the same way I did when he posted how the difference between doggy doo doo and liar is not a beneficial one. Lance also responded by prefacing his next post to Terry as the ‘liar’ responds. When three people see something I would suggest that ‘liar’ would be an appropriate translation for what Terry was attempting to say. Unless he clarifies the point we are at a standstill. One clarification coming up. When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth, and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made that claim has lied. When God says that there were multiple covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant, either God has lied, or the individual has lied. David would prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here. Have a nice day. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Terry:Are these the only two possibilities? 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' (Therefore, either God or the author of this _expression_ is a liar) 'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant'(Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar) David is partly correct when he says that there exists a responsibility on the part of the one writing to communicate with sufficient clarity so as to minimize confusion. On the other hand, as you are a man of maturity, let me suggest that you take more time for reflection on the above.Terry: thinking won't hurt you. Suggestion:Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way? Lance Sent: November 20, 2004 06:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan in Green. Jonathan: There are a few things one can say here. To tell a lie is to be a liar. To believe a lie is not. So Terry says that next time he sees a lie on the list he will call it a lie. The implication is that I am telling a lie, not that I believe a lie. You will see that John took this the same way I did when he posted how the difference between doggy doo doo and liar is not a beneficial one. Lance also responded by prefacing his next post to Terry as the liar responds. When three people see something I would suggest that liar would be an appropriate translation for what Terry was attempting to say. Unless he clarifies the point we are at a standstill. One clarification coming up. When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth, and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made that claim has lied. When God says that there were multiple covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant, either God has lied, or the individual has lied.David would prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here.Have a nice day.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
there isn't a pc alternative Jeff - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 23:39 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? What is the politically correct/Christian love alternative to Left , please? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:02 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? myth (no evidence such a category exists--it's a pejorative construct rootd in radicl consrvatv bias) On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:58:48 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Izzy in red. . I think Terry has just been bullied by the Left side of the forum.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
for Slade: SALUTE! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 23:33 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? In a message dated 11/19/2004 6:23:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, let me ask you, Gary, and David Miller a question... since you are the people (thus far) with complaints. HOW do you want me to moderate the list? I've looked into the list tools and there is no way for me to peruse [specific] people's emails BEFORE they're posted, so I can't do that. I would love to be able to put some people on that kind of moderated status to "star-out portions of a post" or "delete a vicious post." Actuslly --- a word from the moderator, ex-cathedral, should be enough. When Perry spoke, the list complied. ALL OF US SHOULD GIVE SALUTE to the moderator. If he says "move on" OR "knock it off," that should be the end of the matter. Just let us know, Slade, in that particualr email that you are functioning as the Moderator. There should be no discussion -- only blind obedience. Since you are obviously not one to throw your weight around, we should respect the assignment given to you. Do we all agree?John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Jonathan wrote: I do not think we are on TruthTalk to debate or attack anything. Some are. Some are not. TruthTalk is to talk about Truth and it is open to everyone. Therefore, we should expect a lot of variety in why people are here and a lot of variety in how people approach truth. Such discussion will include how a person searches out truth, where truth might be found, and how truth is apprehended, etc. Some people see debate and falsifying hypotheses as a way of doing this. Jonathan wrote: I do believe you think that Truthtalk is the proper forum for this. Yes I do. Jonathan wrote: Our example is a God who claimed victory in weakness on the cross, not through attacking. The cross was not weakness at all. That is the enigma of the cross. The cross shows the power of words. Jesus used words to attack many things in his culture. They crucified him because of his attacks on their social and political structures. Yet, the cross did not defeat him. Words won out over the use of force. That is one power of the cross. Jonathan wrote: A debate or attack implicates the outcome of a winner. Not necessarily. You and John S. invariably misunderstand about 50% of my posts because you have this mindset of "relationships" being interjected into what I say. I debate and attack ideas and hypotheses that need further investigation. I have been trained as a scientist that no ideology is sacred, and that every conclusion, even the most noble of theories, is tentative and should be subject to skepticism and investigation. In fact, in science, a theory that is not potentially falsfiable is completely useless. In science, ideas exist for the sole purpose of trying to falsify them. The concepts that resist falsification the best are the ones we accept as true. I'll say more about this at the end of this post or in another thread with an appropriate title, depending on how much time I have. Jonathan wrote: We are not here to be winners. Well, not in the sense you mean it here, of someone gaining preeminence over someone else. However, I do think we are all winners when an idea is shown to be false and we all realize that we should reject that particular viewpoint. Jonathan wrote: I believe you inherit this from your scientific background. True. Jonathan wrote: In science we have objects. In order to ‘know’ them we must master them, reduce them to their most common elements, to humiliate them. You are confusing reductionism with science now. Many scientists are holistic in their approach, but I am a reductionist with an appreciation for the holistic approach. Jonathan wrote: Mastery over an object belongs only in science. Why? Jonathan wrote: When people become objects mastery should go out the window. People should not become objects, I agree. But here is the problem. You confuse the attacking of a theory or concept with the idea of attacking a person. This is not the same. My perspective is that if someone is following Jesus Christ, they have agreed to set aside everything in their life that is not of Christ. Therefore, when they are shown that a viewpoint they have is not of Truth, then they will lay aside the idea and move on in Christ. Jonathan wrote: On this forum the only time we will actually begin to know each other is if we become changed in the process of working out our relationships. I do not see this list's primary purpose as being something by which we get to know each other. I agree that such happens, and I like it very much. I have come to know guys like Gary, Dave Hansen, and Glenn Tabor primarily through this medium, but I don't think I will ever really get to know them without seeing them in person. Therefore, in my mind, getting to know each other (fellowship) is a secondary purpose of this list. The primary purpose is to dialogue about truth and our varied approaches to truth. Jonathan wrote: John is an excellent example of this. He has come to know Lance and Bill by being changed by them. This involves a great deal of intimacy that the scientific method lacks. It seems to me that you have this theory about relationships being the all encompassing and important thing that effects change, but then you proceed in a way that makes your theory a self-fulfilling prophecy. You reject entering into any relationship that is not based solely upon the kind of interaction that you judge to be the right kind of relationship. Some of us have found change in other ways, by applying the scientific method to concepts and viewpoints throughout life. Anywhere inductive logic is used, the scientific method offers some help in sorting through the conflicting opinions. By the way, exactly how has John been changed by Bill and Lance? What was the problem before he met them, and what is the change in him now that he has intimately come to know them? Jonathan wrote: What I would beg of you is that you drop the debate/attack ideas thing and m
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Slade wrote: HOW do you want me to moderate the list? I've looked into the list tools and there is no way for me to peruse [specific] people's emails BEFORE they're posted, so I can't do that. I would love to be able to put some people on that kind of moderated status to "star-out portions of a post" or "delete a vicious post." John Smithson wrote: ... a word from the moderator, ex-cathedral, should be enough. When Perry spoke, the list complied.ALL OF US SHOULD GIVE SALUTE to the moderator. If he says "move on" OR "knock it off," that should be the end of the matter. Just let us know, Slade, in that particualr email that you are functioning as the Moderator. There should be no discussion -- only blind obedience. Since you are obviously not one to throw your weight around, we should respect the assignment given to you. Do we all agree? I agree with John here. It is possible for me to setup the list to be previewed by you first, but I simply do not like that idea. It has a chilling effect on free speech, in my opinion. People need to be free to express themselves without fear of being censored before it even gets to the list. What you can do that will help is identify those posts that drop into "ad hominem" argumentation. Perry preferred writing the violators privately while I more often dealt with it publicly on the list. When I moderated the list, I put **REPRIMAND** in the subject line. That was a signal to the list members that what I was saying was as moderator and it was not open for public discussion. Any discussion of it should be done privately with me. I think you could follow a similar method, but you are your own unique person. I think you should be free to moderate in any way that you think fit. If you prefer Jonathan's approach of letting the list moderate itself (or some combination of both), that would be fine too. The bottom line is that the moderator helps the discussion be profitable, and you should seek the Lord for wisdom in how to do that. Hopefully, we will all learn from your leadership in this area. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Gary wrote: moderatg the list requires some wisdom--like why quibble with this [issue?] while you say nothin' abot, e.g., Izzy constantly slanderg moderates (both politcl and theolgicl) as left-wingrs, etc; she plainly lied in her characterzation of Ryrie--you postd zero abt/to her! I quibble with this issue because the "s" word is a taboo word in our culture. Characterizing someone as a "left-winger" is not. If you think she is wrong to characterize a theologian as "liberal" or "left," then make your case. In my opinion, almost every professor of theology is liberal. By the way, do you really mean to say that "left-wing" or "liberal" are bad words? Do you consider yourself to be liberal and left-wing, or not? In regards to Ryrie, maybe you can rebut the following two web pages: http://withchrist.org/MJS/ryrieDr.htm http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ryrie.htm 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] Tearing down?
Terry wrote: When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth, and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made that claim has lied. When God says that there were multiple covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant, either God has lied, or the individual has lied. David would prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here. Lance wrote: Terry: Are these the only two possibilities? 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' (Therefore, either God or the author of this expression is a liar) I don't think Terry is saying that these are the only two possibilities. What he is saying is that if the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will lead you into truth, and someone comes along and says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, then the second person is obviously mistaken. If he wants to point out the concept of bias, he would have to modify his viewpoint to accept what God has said, that we can be led into truth. Lance wrote: 'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant' (Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar) If someone is teaching that there is only one unilateral covenant, and someone raises an objection to it by pointing out how Scripture speaks of many covenants, then there needs to be some explanation. Clearly there are some paradoxes in Scripture. Paul says we are justified by grace through faith, without works, but James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone. Such is understood only by considering the context of what they are saying; otherwise, on the surface they appear to be contradictory and opposite statements. In regards to the covenant thing: 1. Nobody has established the idea of a "unilateral covenant." From my perspective, the phrase is nonsense. It is like saying, "unilateral agreement." There is no such thing as an agreement if it is unilateral. I may be all mixed up in my thinking here, but until someone explains a little more, it just does not compute You might as well be talking about a cold Sun or hot ice. 2. Paul clearly identifies two covenants, but Gary and others say there is only one covenant mentioned there. Again, explain what Paul meant or quit contradicting him. Guys like me and Terry read "two covenants" and we say, "oh, I see, Paul perceives there to be two covenants, and one was for someone else and this one is for me and I should not confuse the two covenants or it will mess up the one covenant that is for me." Lance wrote: Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way? Anything is possible, but based upon the discussion thus far, it is highly unlikely that both are correct. 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] Tearing down?
jt: I'm not taking up an offence for Terry because he can take care of himself but I don't believe the statement below is kind or loving. What would make you say such a thing just because Terry's thoughts are different from yours Lance? You know that suggestion cuts both ways. judyt On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Terry:Are these the only two possibilities? 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' (Therefore, either God or the author of this _expression_ is a liar) 'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant'(Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar) David is partly correct when he says that there exists a responsibility on the part of the one writing to communicate with sufficient clarity so as to minimize confusion. On the other hand, as you are a man of maturity, let me suggest that you take more time for reflection on the above.Terry: thinking won't hurt you. Suggestion:Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way? Lance Sent: November 20, 2004 06:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Jonathan in Green. Jonathan: There are a few things one can say here. To tell a lie is to be a liar. To believe a lie is not. So Terry says that next time he sees a lie on the list he will call it a lie. The implication is that I am telling a lie, not that I believe a lie. You will see that John took this the same way I did when he posted how the difference between doggy doo doo and liar is not a beneficial one. Lance also responded by prefacing his next post to Terry as the liar responds. When three people see something I would suggest that liar would be an appropriate translation for what Terry was attempting to say. Unless he clarifies the point we are at a standstill. One clarification coming up. When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth, and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made that claim has lied. When God says that there were multiple covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant, either God has lied, or the individual has lied.David would prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here.Have a nice day.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
DM said:'In my opinion, almost every professor of theology is liberal.' Now, I'm not acquainted with 'almost every professor of theology' but I've read, listened to and, carry many of them. I'm energized by this charge of yours, David. Will you kindly do the following?:1. Define liberal 2. Supply us with a few dozen names which support/exemplify your charge Allow me to kick this off with a few names of those theologians I carry in our store:Thomas F. Torrance (of course!), Karl Barth, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Thomas Aquinas, The Cappadocians (St. Basil The Great, St. Gregory Nazianaius, St. Gregory of Nyssa), Athanasius, Irenaeus, Robert Farrar Capon, Colin Gunton, J. McLeod Campbell, Veli-Matti Karkkainen,Michael Jinkins, Paul Molnar... I look forward to your response. Lance - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 20, 2004 09:09 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > Gary wrote: > > moderatg the list requires some wisdom--like why > > quibble with this [issue?] while you say nothin' abot, > > e.g., Izzy constantly slanderg moderates (both politcl > > and theolgicl) as left-wingrs, etc; she plainly lied in her > > characterzation of Ryrie--you postd zero abt/to her! > > I quibble with this issue because the "s" word is a taboo word in our > culture. Characterizing someone as a "left-winger" is not. If you think > she is wrong to characterize a theologian as "liberal" or "left," then make > your case. In my opinion, almost every professor of theology is liberal. > > By the way, do you really mean to say that "left-wing" or "liberal" are bad > words? Do you consider yourself to be liberal and left-wing, or not? > > In regards to Ryrie, maybe you can rebut the following two web pages: > > http://withchrist.org/MJS/ryrieDr.htm > > http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ryrie.htm > > 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] Tearing down?
In a message dated 11/19/2004 8:50:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No problem, John, givn some impartiality, balance, relevant, even proactive, input, etc. -- 600 more rules arn't necessary:) On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:33:50 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || ..we should respect the assignment given [slade]. Do we..agree? John True. J
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Maybe David, we should allow Terry to speak for himself. However, as it's too late for that without him being influenced by your response why not address a couple of the points: 1. Do you, David, have biases? 2. Do you believe that God will lead you out of all them prior to your demise? 3. Does the truth you speak completely (read exhaustively) overlap with the truth God speaks in all cases of your speaking? 4. When it does not then, what's going on there? 5. Iff (if and only if) Scriptures that there exists 'A' unilateral covenant while also presenting several covenants throughout scripture are these necessarily mutually contradictory? More could be said but, let's start there as you seemed to want to 'engage' on this post. thanks, p - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 20, 2004 09:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > Terry wrote: > > When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth, > > and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we > > all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made > > that claim has lied. When God says that there were multiple > > covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant, > > either God has lied, or the individual has lied. David would > > prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will > > let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here. > > Lance wrote: > > Terry: Are these the only two possibilities? > > 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' > > (Therefore, either God or the author of this expression is a liar) > > I don't think Terry is saying that these are the only two possibilities. > What he is saying is that if the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will lead > you into truth, and someone comes along and says that there is no such thing > as truth because we all have bias, then the second person is obviously > mistaken. If he wants to point out the concept of bias, he would have to > modify his viewpoint to accept what God has said, that we can be led into > truth. > > Lance wrote: > > 'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant' > > (Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar) > > If someone is teaching that there is only one unilateral covenant, and > someone raises an objection to it by pointing out how Scripture speaks of > many covenants, then there needs to be some explanation. Clearly there are > some paradoxes in Scripture. Paul says we are justified by grace through > faith, without works, but James says we are justified by works and not by > faith alone. Such is understood only by considering the context of what > they are saying; otherwise, on the surface they appear to be contradictory > and opposite statements. > > In regards to the covenant thing: > > 1. Nobody has established the idea of a "unilateral covenant." From my > perspective, the phrase is nonsense. It is like saying, "unilateral > agreement." There is no such thing as an agreement if it is unilateral. I > may be all mixed up in my thinking here, but until someone explains a little > more, it just does not compute You might as well be talking about a cold > Sun or hot ice. > > 2. Paul clearly identifies two covenants, but Gary and others say there is > only one covenant mentioned there. Again, explain what Paul meant or quit > contradicting him. Guys like me and Terry read "two covenants" and we say, > "oh, I see, Paul perceives there to be two covenants, and one was for > someone else and this one is for me and I should not confuse the two > covenants or it will mess up the one covenant that is for me." > > Lance wrote: > > Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way? > > Anything is possible, but based upon the discussion thus far, it is highly > unlikely that both are correct. > > 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] Tearing down?
Lance wrote: 1. Do you, David, have biases? Yes. Lance wrote: 2. Do you believe that God will lead you out of all them prior to your demise? No. Some biases are godly and desirable. Lance wrote: 3. Does the truth you speak completely (read exhaustively) overlap with the truth God speaks in all cases of your speaking? If I understand your question correctly, yes. Keep in mind that not everything I speak is truth, but when I speak truth, it will completely overlap with the truth that God speaks in all cases of my speaking that truth. Lance wrote: 4. When it does not then, what's going on there? This question is like, "when did you stop beating your wife." I can't answer it. Lance wrote: 5. Iff (if and only if) Scriptures that there exists 'A' unilateral covenant while also presenting several covenants throughout scripture are these necessarily mutually contradictory? No, but it seems to me that some imagine a unilateral covenant (which to me is like imagining "hot ice") without presenting a single verse in support of it. The red flag for me is when a person holds to a single covenant view and then cannot expound upon those passages that specifically speak of two covenants. I truly don't have trouble seeing a "single covenant" viewpoint, but if someone avoids a specific passage that speaks about two covenants, that is a big red flag to me that they have some pet doctrine and some cultic tendency toward an unhealthy viewpoint. If someone wants to talk about the law, grace, and works, I am equally comfortable expounding upon both Paul and James. Those who avoid James, like Martin Luther who did not consider the book to be inspired, have an unbalanced viewpoint, in my opinion. 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] Tearing down?
e of the covenant cut between God and Abraham, we discover that it involved Abraham's participation -- he prepared the pieces and drove the vultures away (vs. 10-11), but when it came to the binding part, the time to pass through the pieces, God caused a stupor to fall upon Abraham, and Abraham himself was not allowed to pass through the pieces. "And it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces" (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham. It is my contention (i believe that it is our contention) that these were two of the members of the Trinity: the Father and the Son. The Father representing his end of the covenant and the Son representing Abraham's. This is the Father saying to Abraham through the Son that God would honor his promise. And this is the Son saying to the Father on behalf of Abraham, I will honor Abraham's responsibilities. Of course Abraham, and his descendants, would fail to keep the covenant -- his descendants, that is, excepting one: Jesus the Christ, the one with whom the covenant was cut. And so we see that the covenant with Abraham was fulfilled not by Abraham but by his Representative, Jesus Christ, and in this the covenant is unilateral in that God's promise was contingent upon God's fulfillment of the covenant -- enter Emanuel. Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > Terry wrote:> > When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth,> > and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we> > all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made> > that claim has lied. When God says that there were multiple> > covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant,> > either God has lied, or the individual has lied. David would> > prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will> > let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here.> > Lance wrote:> > Terry: Are these the only two possibilities?> > 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth'> > (Therefore, either God or the author of this _expression_ is a liar)> > I don't think Terry is saying that these are the only two possibilities. > What he is saying is that if the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will lead > you into truth, and someone comes along and says that there is no such thing > as truth because we all have bias, then the second person is obviously > mistaken. If he wants to point out the concept of bias, he would have to > modify his viewpoint to accept what God has said, that we can be led into > truth.> > Lance wrote:> > 'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant'> > (Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar)> > If someone is teaching that there is only one unilateral covenant, and > someone raises an objection to it by pointing out how Scripture speaks of > many covenants, then there needs to be some explanation. Clearly there are > some paradoxes in Scripture. Paul says we are justified by grace through > faith, without works, but James says we are justified by works and not by > faith alone. Such is understood only by considering the context of what > they are saying; otherwise, on the surface they appear to be contradictory > and opposite statements.> > In regards to the covenant thing:> > 1. Nobody has established the idea of a "unilateral covenant." From my > perspective, the phrase is nonsense. It is like saying, "unilateral > agreement." There is no such thing as an agreement if it is unilateral. I > may be all mixed up in my thinking here, but until someone explains a little > more, it just does not compute You might as well be talking about a cold > Sun or hot ice.> > 2. Paul clearly identifies two covenants, but Gary and others say there is > only one covenant mentioned there. Again, explain what Paul meant or quit > contradicting him. Guys like me and Terry read "two covenants" and we say, > "oh, I see, Paul perceives there to be two covenants, and one was for > someone else and this one is for me and I should not confuse the two > covenants or it will mess up the one covenant that is for me."> > Lance wrote:> > Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way?> > Anything is possible, but based upon the discussion thus far, it is highly > unlikely that both are correct.> > 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] Tearing down?
'when I speak truth...' Is that a tautology? - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 20, 2004 11:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > Lance wrote: > > 1. Do you, David, have biases? > > Yes. > > Lance wrote: > > 2. Do you believe that God will lead you > > out of all them prior to your demise? > > No. Some biases are godly and desirable. > > Lance wrote: > > 3. Does the truth you speak completely (read > > exhaustively) overlap with the truth God speaks > > in all cases of your speaking? > > If I understand your question correctly, yes. Keep in mind that not > everything I speak is truth, but when I speak truth, it will completely > overlap with the truth that God speaks in all cases of my speaking that > truth. > > Lance wrote: > > 4. When it does not then, what's going on there? > > This question is like, "when did you stop beating your wife." I can't > answer it. > > Lance wrote: > > 5. Iff (if and only if) Scriptures that there exists 'A' > > unilateral covenant while also presenting several > > covenants throughout scripture are these necessarily > > mutually contradictory? > > No, but it seems to me that some imagine a unilateral covenant (which to me > is like imagining "hot ice") without presenting a single verse in support of > it. > > The red flag for me is when a person holds to a single covenant view and > then cannot expound upon those passages that specifically speak of two > covenants. I truly don't have trouble seeing a "single covenant" viewpoint, > but if someone avoids a specific passage that speaks about two covenants, > that is a big red flag to me that they have some pet doctrine and some > cultic tendency toward an unhealthy viewpoint. If someone wants to talk > about the law, grace, and works, I am equally comfortable expounding upon > both Paul and James. Those who avoid James, like Martin Luther who did not > consider the book to be inspired, have an unbalanced viewpoint, in my > opinion. > > 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] Tearing down?
In a message dated 11/20/2004 8:33:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From this we see that it was the passing through the pieces that caused the covenant to be binding. In the case of the covenant cut between God and Abraham, we discover that it involved Abraham's participation -- he prepared the pieces and drove the vultures away (vs. 10-11), but when it came to the binding part, the time to pass through the pieces, God caused a stupor to fall upon Abraham, and Abraham himself was not allowed to pass through the pieces. "And it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces" (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham. It is my contention (i believe that it is our contention) that these were two of the members of the Trinity: the Father and the Son. The Father representing his end of the covenant and the Son representing Abraham's. This is the Father saying to Abraham through the Son that God would honor his promise. And this is the Son saying to the Father on behalf of Abraham, I will honor Abraham's responsibilities. Of course Abraham, and his descendants, would fail to keep the covenant -- his descendants, that is, excepting one: Jesus the Christ, the one with whom the covenant was cut. And so we see that the covenant with Abraham was fulfilled not by Abraham but by his Representative, Jesus Christ, and in this the covenant is unilateral in that God's promise was contingent upon God's fulfillment of the covenant -- enter Emanuel. Bill Excellent -- Gal. 3:16-22-29 seems to be a passage that has a great deal to do with what has been written: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds." as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is Christ. What I am saying is this : the Law which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise the Law .. was added ... until the seed would come to whom the promise has been made so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe . for all who were immersed into (eis) Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ ... and if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise." The many seeds find their blessing IN the single or one Seed. Please forgive what must appear as an effort to half-sole Bill's fine exposition. It is just that the light has been on, for some time, but only dimly -- just now the connection has been hardwired and suddenly burns bright. Thanks Bill. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Bill wrote: And so we see that the covenant with Abraham was fulfilled not by Abraham but by his Representative, Jesus Christ, and in this the covenant is unilateral in that God's promise was contingent upon God's fulfillment of the covenant -- enter Emanuel. Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I have seen this analysis before, but the only unusual thing here in my opinion is that Abraham and God did not pass between the pieces at the same time. Frankly, I would be surprised if they had passed through at the same time. The way it happened does not, in my mind, necessitate applying the term "unilateral" to the covenant. Using the term "unilateral" implies that it is all God and nothing on the part of man. Such a view is not accurate regarding the Abrahamic covenant. One of the reasons God called Abraham his friend was because of his faith. We see that faith expressed in Abraham preparing the animals for the covenant. We see God require an unusual participation on the part of Abraham in regards to circumcision of not only him, but his entire family and servants. So while you might find something interesting in this Gen. 15 passage, how can it possibly justify the term "unilateral covenant."? Note that I certainly see the Messiancic references that you do, and the implication of God taking upon himself some of the covenant responsibilities of man by himself becoming man, but I still am uncomfortable with the phrase, "unilateral covenant." I truly think it is misapplied and leads to erroneous ideas of God's covenant with us. I recently read an article that said marriage was a unilateral covenant and not a bilateral contract. Would you agree with that idea too? 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] Tearing down?
David states > I recently read an article that said marriage was a unilateral covenant and not a bilateral contract. Would you agree with that idea too? Not initially anyway. I would want to see how it defines the terms. I do think there is much to be appreciated from a study of covenants vs. contracts. I'll answer other parts of your post later on. We are going to my birth-father's and his wife's 40th wedding anniversary today. We may be late getting home. Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > Bill wrote: > > And so we see that the covenant with Abraham was > > fulfilled not by Abraham but by his Representative, > > Jesus Christ, and in this the covenant is unilateral in > > that God's promise was contingent upon God's > > fulfillment of the covenant -- enter Emanuel. > > Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I have seen this analysis before, but the > only unusual thing here in my opinion is that Abraham and God did not pass > between the pieces at the same time. Frankly, I would be surprised if they > had passed through at the same time. The way it happened does not, in my > mind, necessitate applying the term "unilateral" to the covenant. Using the > term "unilateral" implies that it is all God and nothing on the part of man. > Such a view is not accurate regarding the Abrahamic covenant. One of the > reasons God called Abraham his friend was because of his faith. We see that > faith expressed in Abraham preparing the animals for the covenant. We see > God require an unusual participation on the part of Abraham in regards to > circumcision of not only him, but his entire family and servants. So while > you might find something interesting in this Gen. 15 passage, how can it > possibly justify the term "unilateral covenant."? > > Note that I certainly see the Messiancic references that you do, and the > implication of God taking upon himself some of the covenant responsibilities > of man by himself becoming man, but I still am uncomfortable with the > phrase, "unilateral covenant." I truly think it is misapplied and leads to > erroneous ideas of God's covenant with us. > > I recently read an article that said marriage was a unilateral covenant and > not a bilateral contract. Would you agree with that idea too? > > 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] Tearing down?
If I didn't know better, I would say that Bill has been studying under one of my professors!! Beautiful explanation, John hopefully the light gets much brighter. Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 12:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? In a message dated 11/20/2004 8:33:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From this we see that it was the passing through the pieces that caused the covenant to be binding. In the case of the covenant cut between God and Abraham, we discover that it involved Abraham's participation -- he prepared the pieces and drove the vultures away (vs. 10-11), but when it came to the binding part, the time to pass through the pieces, God caused a stupor to fall upon Abraham, and Abraham himself was not allowed to pass through the pieces. "And it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces" (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham. It is my contention (i believe that it is our contention) that these were two of the members of the Trinity: the Father and the Son. The Father representing his end of the covenant and the Son representing Abraham's. This is the Father saying to Abraham through the Son that God would honor his promise. And this is the Son saying to the Father on behalf of Abraham, I will honor Abraham's responsibilities. Of course Abraham, and his descendants, would fail to keep the covenant -- his descendants, that is, excepting one: Jesus the Christ, the one with whom the covenant was cut. And so we see that the covenant with Abraham was fulfilled not by Abraham but by his Representative, Jesus Christ, and in this the covenant is unilateral in that God's promise was contingent upon God's fulfillment of the covenant -- enter Emanuel.BillExcellent -- Gal. 3:16-22-29 seems to be a passage that has a great deal to do with what has been written: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds." as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is Christ. What I am saying is this : the Law which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise the Law .. was added ... until the seed would come to whom the promise has been made so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe . for all who were immersed into (eis) Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ ... and if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise." The many seeds find their blessing IN the single or one Seed. Please forgive what must appear as an effort to half-sole Bill's fine exposition. It is just that the light has been on, for some time, but only dimly -- just now the connection has been hardwired and suddenly burns bright. Thanks Bill.Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
ï myth [not the issue; its your bias toward a partic of type of lie/liar in action] On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:09:26 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:>Characterizing someone as a "left-winger" is not [wrong]. If you think >she is wrong to characterize a theologian as "liberal" or "left," then make >your case. In my opinion, almost every professor of theology is liberal.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
(If) it is truly misapplied (then it will) lead to erroneous ideas of God's covenant with us' The following is not some debate point, David: IFF you misunderstand this point then, to some extent, you are not speaking the truth of God when you speak the truth you speak. Is this correct? - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 20, 2004 12:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > Bill wrote: > > And so we see that the covenant with Abraham was > > fulfilled not by Abraham but by his Representative, > > Jesus Christ, and in this the covenant is unilateral in > > that God's promise was contingent upon God's > > fulfillment of the covenant -- enter Emanuel. > > Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I have seen this analysis before, but the > only unusual thing here in my opinion is that Abraham and God did not pass > between the pieces at the same time. Frankly, I would be surprised if they > had passed through at the same time. The way it happened does not, in my > mind, necessitate applying the term "unilateral" to the covenant. Using the > term "unilateral" implies that it is all God and nothing on the part of man. > Such a view is not accurate regarding the Abrahamic covenant. One of the > reasons God called Abraham his friend was because of his faith. We see that > faith expressed in Abraham preparing the animals for the covenant. We see > God require an unusual participation on the part of Abraham in regards to > circumcision of not only him, but his entire family and servants. So while > you might find something interesting in this Gen. 15 passage, how can it > possibly justify the term "unilateral covenant."? > > Note that I certainly see the Messiancic references that you do, and the > implication of God taking upon himself some of the covenant responsibilities > of man by himself becoming man, but I still am uncomfortable with the > phrase, "unilateral covenant." I truly think it is misapplied and leads to > erroneous ideas of God's covenant with us. > > I recently read an article that said marriage was a unilateral covenant and > not a bilateral contract. Would you agree with that idea too? > > 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] Tearing down?
Lance Muir wrote: Terry:Are these the only two possibilities? 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' (Therefore, either God or the author of this _expression_ is a liar) 'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant'(Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar) David is partly correct when he says that there exists a responsibility on the part of the one writing to communicate with sufficient clarity so as to minimize confusion. On the other hand, as you are a man of maturity, let me suggest that you take more time for reflection on the above.Terry: thinking won't hurt you. Suggestion:Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way? Lance I have reflected long and hard Lance. I have had to apologise to my Lord for not defending His word sooner. I remained quiet too long because I have no desire to hurt you or anyone else. I cannot compromise God's word, so my answer has to be no. There is no way that you and God can both be correct. That does not mean that I hate you or wish you ill. It is just the way it is. I hope that there is no room for confusion. If God is right, you are wrong. No wiggle room. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Terry:How right you are in saying:'When God is right there is no wiggle room.' So, allow me to AMEN that then, leave it right there. thanks brother, Lance - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 20, 2004 13:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? Lance Muir wrote: Terry:Are these the only two possibilities? 'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' (Therefore, either God or the author of this _expression_ is a liar) 'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant'(Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar) David is partly correct when he says that there exists a responsibility on the part of the one writing to communicate with sufficient clarity so as to minimize confusion. On the other hand, as you are a man of maturity, let me suggest that you take more time for reflection on the above.Terry: thinking won't hurt you. Suggestion:Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way? Lance I have reflected long and hard Lance. I have had to apologise to my Lord for not defending His word sooner. I remained quiet too long because I have no desire to hurt you or anyone else. I cannot compromise God's word, so my answer has to be no. There is no way that you and God can both be correct. That does not mean that I hate you or wish you ill. It is just the way it is. I hope that there is no room for confusion. If God is right, you are wrong. No wiggle room.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Lance Muir wrote: Terry:How right you are in saying:'When God is right there is no wiggle room.' So, allow me to AMEN that then, leave it right there. thanks brother, Lance === U be welcome. ( I don't have a handle on Hebrew or Greek, but I am becoming fluent in ebonics). Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Jeff in red: Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants David MillerWed, 17 Nov 2004 06:12:27 -0800 Jeff wrote: I see one covenant. God's covenant with man, begun with Abraham, amended with Moses, Again amended with David. Jeremiah prophesied a renewal, as did Isaiah, etc. That renewal was accomplished through Yeshua. The "New Covenant" is not new, it is Renewed. On what basis are you confident that the "New Covenant" is a "Renewed Covenant" and not new? I recognize that this is an assumption made by Messianics and Nazarenes, but is this only an assumption on your part, or is there some argument that has convinced you that "Renewed" is the proper translation and understanding? Yes the Biblical text and a Hebraic understanding of the Hebraic texts of said Bible.Did you see my post about Romans 7 where Sha'ul speaks of it being adultery to be bound to both the Torah and to Christ at the same time? David, David, David what part of maintaining CONTEXT do you not understand? You must include Romans 7:7-8:3 at the very least. And the whole book to grasp the context of this Epistle. That is why I dislike Cut and Paste Theology, as I said before, it allows one to make any passage of Scripture say what ever is in that persons personal agenda. This entire letter addresses Jewish believers in Rome. Sha'ul is telling us that the goodness and love of God is that He cannot relax the Torah because that is God's very nature. Sha'ul is telling us that consistant with His Torah, God has a plan to bring people into union with him through the sin sacrifice of His son, Yeshua. The sin offering required by God in His Torah. There can be no atonement for sin without the shedding of blood, Yeshua offered up the ultimate sin sacrifice for us.Romans 7:3-6(3) So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.(4) Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.(5) For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.(6) But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow who had married another man to have a "renewed" marriage contract or a new one. Maybe you can answer this question for me, and perhaps you also can exegete the passage above (Rom. 7:3-6). Perhaps you have another translation you think is better. I have the Hebraic Roots Version by James Trimm and some other translations that I can consult too.Jeff wrote: Sorry David, but Cut and Paste Theology is perfected in the church and allows it's practitioners to distort almost any passage of scripture and make it say anything when it is removed from it's original context. Oh, come on Jeff, be a man. If you think that I have taken something out of context, say that. I belive I just did. Don't make me infer it by saying that such theology is perfected in the church. If you think that I have yanked something out of context, say that and then explain the context. Make your case. Comments like this paragraph above are nothing but a smoke screen and say absolutely nothing. I have done no "Cut and Paste" theology. I argue as the apostles argued in New Testament times: It is written... You need to do a little more "It is written" style argument here. Nobody is going to just take your word for it on this matter. Rom 2:13, For it is not those who hear Torah who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey Torah who will be declared righteous. Rom 2:14, (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have Torah, do by nature things required by Torah, they are a Torah for themselves, even though they do not have Torah, That goes to the very heart of the issue when I said (many posts ago, early Oct. as I remember it) that many of you would be suprised how many of the 613 commandments you do obey. Now look where that got us! Rom 2:15, since they show that the requirements of Torah are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. Rom 3:25, God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- A sin sacrifice according to Torah for the benefit of mankind! Rom 3:30, since indeed there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith. Rom 3:31, Do w
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
In a message dated 11/20/2004 6:15:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: What list were you on John? What I noticed was that when Perry spoke nobody did things any different than before. Could this be how he got discouraged and stopped saying anything? I don't remember Perry intervening a whole lot but he did ask us to stop the 'one liners' and write messages of some substance to engender discussion... but the one liners kept on as though he hadn't said a word - not only that but we are now reduced to one word and at times an emoticon. I do hope we honor God's Word a whole lot more than the words of the TT List moderator... Blind obedience? Say you're joking John I think my post is plain enough. I know if Perry got on my case, I accepted it and moved on. Blind obedience ??? Slade is the moderator of the list. That is Miller's decision and David is the owner of the list. I don't remember Perry being ignored by those on this list. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
Perhaps the significance of "walking thorugh the pieces" needs to be understood, and the consequence is rather disturbing. In the culture of the area and at the time, when a covenant was to be made between two people, animals (owned by BOTH parties) would be cut in half and the pieces placed on two altars. The participants would walk together between the pieces (between the altars) thus a "covenant was cut" (the Biblical term for God's covenant making with humankind). The pretense suggests that if the people walking through the pieces break the covenant, may what happened to the animals also happen to them and their descendants. God passed through the pieces as a burning furnace while Avraham was in a deep sleep. Therefore God unilaterally passed through the pieces and God unilaterally is responsible for the keeping of the covenant. This explains why the Spirit of the Holy One is promised and the purpose of the Spirit is to help us KEEP the commandments God laid down for us during the time of Moses (please refer to my previous post entitled Walking in the Spirit for more information on [one of] the purpose[s] of the Spirit). -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
Oh.. the consequence... God uses the culture of the person to His benefit and still His Plan comes to fruition. What does this mean? He can even use the Western mindset to accomplish His Goal. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Saturday, 20 November, 2004 18.51To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down? Perhaps the significance of "walking thorugh the pieces" needs to be understood, and the consequence is rather disturbing..
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
true, John--the content of a post is unique to the poster--one strength of TT is in leaving it at that, e.g.: most posts on TT are significant partic while taken as a whole; like yours, they're simple inquiries and responses which also, collectively, reflect the mind of a certain Internet community usually engrossed in a peacful discussion, or truth talk in this effort the TT list is succeeding in its purpose to allow readers and posters to interact as lovingly as they want to with the truth indeed the substance of our posts gives crucial impressions to each other and to the readers beyond us, but to require, e.g., that all of our posts approximate classic literary documents of a certain length would add useless little to a significant portion of the list's content and detract from how moderate we are, mostly on our own G On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:20:09 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think my post is plain enough.
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
One way I use (and for the sake of a disclaimer I do not think this is the only way, nor is it the only way I use) to determine if what one says is of God is the response I feel within me. When I read this post all my senses gathered up to a zinging point. And yes I think I just made up the word ‘zinging.’ Sometimes a post on TT leads one to worship and praise. To think that God would do this for us amazes me. I like the fact that Avraham was in a deep sleep. I am going to ponder the significance of that. No wonder the scriptures constantly speak of God’s faithfulness in comparison to our unfaithfulness. Thank you Bill and slade for the posts on this topic today. JBH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down? Perhaps the significance of "walking thorugh the pieces" needs to be understood, and the consequence is rather disturbing. In the culture of the area and at the time, when a covenant was to be made between two people, animals (owned by BOTH parties) would be cut in half and the pieces placed on two altars. The participants would walk together between the pieces (between the altars) thus a "covenant was cut" (the Biblical term for God's covenant making with humankind). The pretense suggests that if the people walking through the pieces break the covenant, may what happened to the animals also happen to them and their descendants. God passed through the pieces as a burning furnace while Avraham was in a deep sleep. Therefore God unilaterally passed through the pieces and God unilaterally is responsible for the keeping of the covenant. This explains why the Spirit of the Holy One is promised and the purpose of the Spirit is to help us KEEP the commandments God laid down for us during the time of Moses (please refer to my previous post entitled Walking in the Spirit for more information on [one of] the purpose[s] of the Spirit). -- slade --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
John wrote: I don't remember Perry being ignored by those on this list. For the record, Perry had complained to me how people ignored his posts of instruction and he did not know what to do to get people to comply. Perry and I both have desired people to quote only portions of people's posts, as you see I do by example. Few pay any heed to such instruction. Your posts especially almost always contain the entire previous post to which you reply. At one time we had software that rejected posts that were not trimmed sufficiently. I had lots of people complain and I finally gave up fighting about all of that. Some people just don't get it. I hope Perry is still reading some of these and responds himself. He expressed to me privately the frustration that Judy seemed to be sensitive enough to perceive. What Judy described was very on target. Maybe she is in more intimate "relationship" than some people on the list realize. :-) 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] Tearing Down?
Jonathan wrote: I like the fact that Avraham was in a deep sleep. I am going to ponder the significance of that. Do not overlook the fact that God was in deep communication with Abraham during this sleep concerning the fate of his descendants as a result of his covenant that he was now cutting with him. Remember that Abraham was a prophet and God was speaking to him at this time as he does to all his prophets, during a sleep which he brought upon him. Abraham was not callously "snoozing it off" and oblivious to God and his surroundings, but rather he was in direct communion with God in his spirit during this time. 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] Tearing Down?
slade and/or Bill--How would you guys evaluate Abe's prophetic status with God before and after the 'deep sleep', below? G On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:44:01 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || I like the fact that Avraham was in a deep sleep. || From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:51 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down? || God passed through the pieces as a burning furnace while Avraham was in a deep sleep. ||
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
Avraham is called a prophet, that is true, in the Avimelekh drama. Where does he prophesy? He prophesies on his way up Mt. Moriyah with the wood strapped onto Isaac's back. THAT, as a matter of fact, is one of the most powerful prophesies in the Bible! -- slade As far as Avraham's sleep goes, he was not callously sleeping. The deep sleep was brought on by the hand of God. The text tells us so. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, 20 November, 2004 21.30To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down? slade and/or Bill--How would you guys evaluate Abe's prophetic status with God before and after the 'deep sleep', below?
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
in what verses was Abe awake in Gen 15? On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:52:04 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The text tells us..
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
One could say (1) he was awake from verses 1 through the middle of verse 12. Others might say (2) he was awake from the end of verse 11 until the middle of verse 12. I prefer the former because having a "vision" does not necessarily insist upon closed eyes and horizontal positioning. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, 20 November, 2004 22.36To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down? in what verses was Abe awake in Gen 15? On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:52:04 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The text tells us..
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
got it--let's see
what else's postd
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:51:28 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
One
could say (1) he was awake from verses 1 through the middle of verse 12.
Others might say (2) he was awake from the end of verse 11 until the middle of
verse 12. I prefer the former because having a "vision" does not necessarily
insist upon closed eyes and horizontal positioning.
--
slade
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, 20 November, 2004
22.36To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
in what verses
was Abe awake in Gen 15?
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:52:04 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
The text tells us..
RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
That is absolutely amazing. For the first time ever G wrote something that I actually understand. Wonders never cease. Thank you! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down true, John--the content of a post is unique to the poster--one strength of TT is in leaving it at that, e.g.: most posts on TT are significant partic while taken as a whole; like yours, they're simple inquiries and responses which also, collectively, reflect the mind of a certain Internet community usually engrossed in a peacful discussion, or truth talk in this effort the TT list is succeeding in its purpose to allow readers and posters to interact as lovingly as they want to with the truth indeed the substance of our posts gives crucial impressions to each other and to the readers beyond us, but to require, e.g., that all of our posts approximate classic literary documents of a certain length would add useless little to a significant portion of the list's content and detract from how moderate we are, mostly on our own G On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:20:09 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think my post is plain enough.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
In a message dated 11/20/2004 4:44:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you Bill and slade for the posts on this topic today. JBH Yes -- and Gary, thanks for the suport,. I will do less defending. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
I concur as to Judy's 'godliness'. I concur as to her 'rule following'. Now, as to the matter of persons 'get(ting) it': is it possible that the ONLY ones who 'get it' are those ones who DO IT? Of course we would be needful of some defining by David on 'get' and on 'it'.(no silly (w)talk here). - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 20, 2004 20:09 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down > John wrote: > > I don't remember Perry being ignored by those on this list. > > For the record, Perry had complained to me how people ignored his posts of > instruction and he did not know what to do to get people to comply. Perry > and I both have desired people to quote only portions of people's posts, as > you see I do by example. Few pay any heed to such instruction. Your posts > especially almost always contain the entire previous post to which you > reply. > > At one time we had software that rejected posts that were not trimmed > sufficiently. I had lots of people complain and I finally gave up fighting > about all of that. Some people just don't get it. > > I hope Perry is still reading some of these and responds himself. He > expressed to me privately the frustration that Judy seemed to be sensitive > enough to perceive. What Judy described was very on target. Maybe she is > in more intimate "relationship" than some people on the list realize. :-) > > 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] Tearing Down
In a message dated 11/21/2004 4:40:18 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the record, Perry had complained to me how people ignored his posts of> instruction and he did not know what to do to get people to comply. Perry> and I both have desired people to quote only portions of people's posts,as> you see I do by example. I don't respond to a lot of posts. There are days when I get 75 posts or more and it is all I can do to skim them. I try to seriously read those that are not simply one word responses. Sometimes I have to unsub for awhile when it gets overwhelming. There is no point in responding if I am going to just say the same thing someone else has said. If it is a thread that doesn't seem to go anywhere I just follow the subject line and delete. Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
For the record:I do believe that post originated with David Miller. It did not originate with Lance Muir. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 21, 2004 07:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down In a message dated 11/21/2004 4:40:18 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the record, Perry had complained to me how people ignored his posts of> instruction and he did not know what to do to get people to comply. Perry> and I both have desired people to quote only portions of people's posts,as> you see I do by example. I don't respond to a lot of posts. There are days when I get 75 posts or more and it is all I can do to skim them. I try to seriously read those that are not simply one word responses. Sometimes I have to unsub for awhile when it gets overwhelming. There is no point in responding if I am going to just say the same thing someone else has said. If it is a thread that doesn't seem to go anywhere I just follow the subject line and delete. Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
David writes > So while you might find something interesting in this Gen. 15 passage, how can it possibly justify the term "unilateral covenant."? I see from the responses made by some of the other members that in the context of Gen 15 the qualities of this term are not that difficult to grasp -- or erroneous once you have. Please continue to read the posts related to this topic and consider the awesome ramifications. Slade's post was quite helpful, along with John's and Judy's. I will be responding to Judy regarding some questions she had in a prior post. Perhaps my response to her will in some way also begin to address your reservation. Blessings, Bill -- "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] Tearing Down
In a message dated 11/20/2004 5:10:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry and I both have desired people to quote only portions of people's posts, as you see I do by example. Few pay any heed to such instruction. Your posts especially almost always contain the entire previous post to which you reply. How many times have I asked of you to narrow your responses to my posts? Including the entire post as a reference is not the problem, as I see it. It is the involvement of the response. John Maybe you could (or Perry) send me a posted caution that I ignored.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 11/20/2004 5:50:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jonathan wrote: >John is an excellent example of this. He has come to know >Lance and Bill by being changed by them. This involves a >great deal of intimacy that the scientific method lacks. By the way, exactly how has John been changed by Bill and Lance? What was the problem before he met them, and what is the change in him now that he has intimately come to know them? David, I think Jon's assessment of Smithson's change should be accepted at face value in the light of several posts by Smithson dealing in detail with this subject. I am surprised that you would decide to argue this point. Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Bill wrote: I see from the responses made by some of the other members that in the context of Gen 15 the qualities of this term are not that difficult to grasp -- or erroneous once you have. I don't think I have any difficulty grasping the concept. We have all been spoon fed this doctrine for years. I do question its validity, especially in light of the fruit that I have seen it bear. I truly am becoming more serious in believing that this view of a "unilateral covenant" is flat out error. Let me ask you a simple question. Was Abraham an active participant or a passive participant in his covenant with Yahweh? I would like to hear Slade, Jonathan H., John S., and Lance also answer this, and anybody else who would like to chime in. 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] Tearing Down
John S. wrote: How many times have I asked of you to narrow your responses to my posts? Including the entire post as a reference is not the problem, as I see it. It is the involvement of the response. We have opposite viewpoints here, John. I hate reading again posts that I had read before. Only enough should be quoted to remind someone the gist of the previous post that is being responded to. I enjoy seeing someone take time to make a lengthy response where they fully explain what they are trying to say. I generally do not like short responses that you and Lance make because they are so ambiguous and can be understood many different ways. I have been attempting to limit my responses to you, but I do not limit my responses to others because others tell me they prefer the longer explanations. 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] Tearing down?
David Miller wrote: By the way, exactly how has John been changed by Bill and Lance? What was the problem before he met them, and what is the change in him now that he has intimately come to know them? John S. wrote: David, I think Jon's assessment of Smithson's change should be accepted at face value in the light of several posts by Smithson dealing in detail with this subject. I am surprised that you would decide to argue this point. I did not argue the point. I did accept what Jonathan said at face value, as evidenced by my asking for details. If I was arguing the point, I would have told him that you have changed for the worse or not at all and given reasons why. Instead, I accepted what he said and asked to hear more details from his perspective concerning how you have been changed for the better. Have you ever considered that Jonathan's perspective might not be identical to yours, and that you might actually be blessed to hear from him on this? It does seem that you always read my comments in a negative light, always looking for some way to trap me in my words. Try to think the best of me. I am not your enemy. 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] Tearing down?
Judy Taylor said: the 'angel of His Presence' (the pre-incarnate Christ). Slade asks two questions: Why do you assume the Angel of His Presence is the Pre-incarnate Christ? In your thoughts, is the Angel of the Presence the same as the Angel of the LORD? -- slade
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
In a message dated 11/21/2004 1:29:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I generally do not like short responses that you and Lance make because they are so ambiguous and can be understood many different ways. I am confused. First my responses are too long and now they are too short. The John Kerry approach to forum communication is difficult to deal with -- but it does seem to me that you are well on your way to a fine political career. I believe that you have a stated an interest in such in the past. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
In a message dated 11/21/2004 1:29:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been attempting to limit my responses to you, but I do not limit my responses to others because others tell me they prefer the longer explanations. Appreciated. Keep those itty-bitty posts coming. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 11/21/2004 1:23:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me ask you a simple question. Was Abraham an active participant or a passive participant in his covenant with Yahweh? I would like to hear Slade, Jonathan H., John S., and Lance also answer this, and anybody else who would like to chime in. Don't youu mean "in God's covenant with him (Abraham)?" John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 11/21/2004 1:42:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did not argue the point. I did accept what Jonathan said at face value, as evidenced by my asking for details. If I was arguing the point, I would have told him that you have changed for the worse or not at all and given reasons why. Instead, I accepted what he said and asked to hear more details from his perspective concerning how you have been changed for the better. Have you ever considered that Jonathan's perspective might not be identical to yours, and that you might actually be blessed to hear from him on this? It does seem that you always read my comments in a negative light, always looking for some way to trap me in my words. Try to think the best of me. I am not your enemy. You may be right. It is just that I have written several posts expressing my appreciation for this forum. In point of fact, David, I would not trust you with personal information or personal confession at this time. I have no reason to believe that you regard me as a brother in good standing (in Christ). Not whinning about that -- just making an observation. But I will hold my fire (somewhat) in the future. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
John S. wrote: > I am confused. First my responses are too long > and now they are too short. LOL. Read a little more carefully. I never said your responses are too long. I said you didn't trim the old material out of your posts making your post (not your response) too long. You will answer a long post with one sentence or even an emoticon, without ever trimming the original post. So now you think I'm like John Kerry, eh? That is truly a new one. Thanks for the chuckle. Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
In a message dated 11/21/2004 6:59:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LOL. Read a little more carefully. I never said your responses are too long. I said you didn't trim the old material out of your posts making your post (not your response) too long. You will answer a long post with one sentence or even an emoticon, without ever trimming the original post. So now you think I'm like John Kerry, eh? That is truly a new one. Thanks for the chuckle. You are wlcome. JD By the -- I am now offically curious. Am I a brother in Christ in good standing or not? Your silence is interesting. Should I just go with Assumptive Knowing or wait for an actual answer? John The Beloved
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
He (Abraham) participated and we participate. This in no way negates the possibility of a 'unilateral' covenant. As to the charge of 'error':I'm currently comfortable subsuming most, if not all, my thinking under:The Nature of God and, The Nature of God's Gospel. (I should appreciate knowing what others of you think of these categories). 'Unilateral covenant' subsumes' nicely within that framework. Driving home yesterday I was listening to an Aussie (Bruce Wauchope) speak to the matter of conscience (i.e. did A&E have one?). It came to me (no epiphany involved) that an accent and a tradition are somewhat similarly acquired. I do believe many people on TT speak with an accent. Tell me, can you hear them? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 21, 2004 16:48 Subject: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Bill wrote: I see from the responses made by some of the other members that in the context of Gen 15 the qualities of this term are not that difficult to grasp -- or erroneous once you have. DavidM: I don't think I have any difficulty grasping the concept. We have all been spoon fed this doctrine for years. I do question its validity, especially in light of the fruit that I have seen it bear. I truly am becoming more serious in believing that this view of a "unilateral covenant" is flat out error. Let me ask you a simple question. Was Abraham an active participant or a passive participant in his covenant with Yahweh? I would like to hear Slade, Jonathan H., John S., and Lance also answer this, and anybody else who would like to chime in. jt: I had been aware for a long time that God walked through the pieces while Abraham slept. I hadn't pondered on what form God took - whether it was God the Spirit or the 'angel of His Presence' (the pre-incarnate Christ). I'm still not sure what this 'unilateral covenant' entails in the minds of Bill, Lance, Jonathan, John, and Slade. However, in answer to your question Abraham was anything but passive. His faith was sorely tried when God told him to sacrifice the 'son of promise' and his willingness to take Isaac to Mt. Moriah and put him on the pyre showed it's genuineness. That was 'good fruit' and God did not do this for him. We are co-laborers with God and faith without corresponding actions is dead. Would the covenant still have been unilateral if Abraham had not obeyed God? judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Lance, Was my ears flappin' in the breeze agin' :) Jeff - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? I do believe many people on TT speak with an accent. Tell me, can you hear them?
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Did I hear that your nickname was 'Dumbo'. (Lest we
unintentionally cause offence, Dumbo was a Disney character with big ears..some
of us on some occasions can be touchy..touchy..touchy I think not you
though, Jeff).
- Original Message -
From:
Jeff
Powers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 22, 2004 05:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing
down?
Lance,
Was my ears flappin' in the breeze
agin' :)
Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004
4:00
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing
down?
I do believe many people on TT speak with
an accent. Tell me, can you hear them?
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down
John S. wrote: Am I a brother in Christ in good standing or not? Your silence is interesting. You asked me not to respond to every point, and the answer to this one I wrote in a previous post so I was not going to respond. Of course I accept you as my brother in Christ. Not only that, but as I said before, I like you. In any case, I am not your judge. You do not stand or fall based upon my judgment, but the one who judges you is the Lord. 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] Tearing down?
To answer your question, Lance, I believe that I am probably the only one on TT without an accent. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? He (Abraham) participated and we participate. This in no way negates the possibility of a 'unilateral' covenant. As to the charge of 'error':I'm currently comfortable subsuming most, if not all, my thinking under:The Nature of God and, The Nature of God's Gospel. (I should appreciate knowing what others of you think of these categories). 'Unilateral covenant' subsumes' nicely within that framework. Driving home yesterday I was listening to an Aussie (Bruce Wauchope) speak to the matter of conscience (i.e. did A&E have one?). It came to me (no epiphany involved) that an accent and a tradition are somewhat similarly acquired. I do believe many people on TT speak with an accent. Tell me, can you hear them? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 21, 2004 16:48 Subject: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill wrote: I see from the responses made by some of the other members that in the context of Gen 15 the qualities of this term are not that difficult to grasp -- or erroneous once you have. DavidM: I don't think I have any difficulty grasping the concept. We have all been spoon fed this doctrine for years. I do question its validity, especially in light of the fruit that I have seen it bear. I truly am becoming more serious in believing that this view of a "unilateral covenant" is flat out error. Let me ask you a simple question. Was Abraham an active participant or a passive participant in his covenant with Yahweh? I would like to hear Slade, Jonathan H., John S., and Lance also answer this, and anybody else who would like to chime in. jt: I had been aware for a long time that God walked through the pieces while Abraham slept. I hadn't pondered on what form God took - whether it was God the Spirit or the 'angel of His Presence' (the pre-incarnate Christ). I'm still not sure what this 'unilateral covenant' entails in the minds of Bill, Lance, Jonathan, John, and Slade. However, in answer to your question Abraham was anything but passive. His faith was sorely tried when God told him to sacrifice the 'son of promise' and his willingness to take Isaac to Mt. Moriah and put him on the pyre showed it's genuineness. That was 'good fruit' and God did not do this for him. We are co-laborers with God and faith without corresponding actions is dead. Would the covenant still have been unilateral if Abraham had not obeyed God? judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
ShieldsFamily wrote: To answer your question, Lance, I believe that I am probably the only one on TT without an accent. J Izzy By Jove! Jolly good show. Bully! Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:40:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, the law of God is not sin. The law is holy and good. There is, however, a law of sin and death that works within our physical bodies. That was what we were talking about when I was referring to the "Torah of sin" using Slade's terminology. I don't know if I ever seen use this terminology -- "Torah of sin."
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
ftr, i think the author prov On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
ftr, i think the author prov On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
FTR, Re: Gen 15, i think the writr appears to 'break' more naturally at the end of verse 6; vs. 7, at least up to vs. 17, seems to be of a literary piece, perhaps inc 18ff., as below this means an argumnt for the unity of meanng in 1-6 and 7- 17, inc/not inc 18f., isn't out of the question On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 12/4/2004 7:26:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FTR, Re: Gen 15, i think the writr appears to 'break' more naturally at the end of verse 6; vs. 7, at least up to vs. 17, seems to be of a literary piece, perhaps inc 18ff., as below this means an argumnt for the unity of meanng in 1-6 and 7- 17, inc/not inc 18f., isn't out of the question On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) G - Thanks for giving me something to think about this evening (after my wife goes to sleep). This will sound rather rediculous, but I have never been taught a single lesson (in school or via a sermon) that had anything to do with Genesis 15. Not one. Kind of amazing. Just shows you have far behind the times I am. Another plus for this forum. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
HUH? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? ftr, i think the author prov On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
disregard--not sure
how this got postd--sorry
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:46:59 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HUH?
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:11
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing
down?
ftr, i think the author prov
||
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
I'm at InnGlory going through the abbreviations,
thinking someone needs to add one to the list, when out of the BLUE (get it?
blue letters?) it hits me . . .
Never mind.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:46
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing
down?
HUH?
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:11
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing
down?
ftr, i think the author prov
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BT, The
ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it
could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the
'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be
anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a
deal which is actually bi-latrl..
well, perhaps
someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity
of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:)
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
(v. 17). Two parties passed through
the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
RE: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Dave I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow who had married another man to have a "renewed" marriage contract or a new one. Maybe you can answer this question for me, and perhaps you also can exegete the passage above (Rom. 7:3-6). Perhaps you have another translation you think is better. I have the Hebraic Roots Version by James Trimm and some other translations that I can consult too. Slade: The logic is wrong here. We are the widow who are then able to marry our True Husband. We are not divorced from Torah of Moses to marry Messiah, we are divorced from the "Torah of sin" (to quote D.Stern, I think) to marry Messiah.
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
David Miller wrote: I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow who had married another man to have a "renewed" marriage contract or a new one. Slade wrote: The logic is wrong here. We are the widow who are then able to marry our True Husband. We are not divorced from Torah of Moses to marry Messiah, we are divorced from the "Torah of sin" (to quote D.Stern, I think) to marry Messiah. There are two questions involved here. First, I was just asking whether or not a widow who married again was considered to have a renewed or new marriage contract. Can I assume that your answer here is that a widow who married again has a new marriage contract? The second question concerns the passage in Romans. You say that we are not divorced from "Torah of Moses" to marry Messiah, but rather we are divorced from "Torah of sin." Let's examine that, but first let me affirm that we are indeed to divorce from the Torah of sin, and to consider ourselves dead to the Torah of sin, that we might be married to Messiah. We agree on that, but not on the Torah of Moses thing. Look at the passage for yourself. Romans 7:3-13 (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. Verse 3. Clearly this is Torah of Moses. The Torah of Moses is what prohibits adultery, but releases the woman to remarry in the case of death. The Torah of sin does not prohibit adultery. So verse 3 is speaking about the Torah of Moses. Agreed? Verse 4. You believe that this verse is talking about Torah of sin while I believe it continues to talk about Torah of Moses. Why do I believe that? Because of the previous and subsequent verses. Verse 5. The motions of sin, which were by the law... which law? The law of Moses, as he explains in verse 6 & 7. Verse 6. Now we are delivered from the law... which law? The law of Moses, as he explains in verses 7 & 8. Verse 7. Is the law sin? Well, if we were talking about the law of sin, the answer would be yes, but no, we are talking about the law of Moses. Therefore, verses 4, 5, & 6 leading up to this verse clearly has the law of Moses in view. This is most abundantly clear by what follows next. He actually quotes the law: I had not know lust, except the law had said, 'Thou shalt not covet.' Which law is this? Clearly not the law of sin, but the law of Moses. What Paul is explaining here is an interaction between the law of Moses and the law of sin in our members. Verse 8. Without the law, sin was dead. Which law? Again, it is the law of Moses. Look at verse 11: sin taking occasion by the commandment... which commandment? The commandment that comes from the law of Moses. I could go on and on, but surely you get the point. The law Paul speaks about here is the law of Moses. He specifically quotes a commandment of that law (thou shalt not covet). More importantly, he is talking about a kind of relationship with the law, a covenant, whereby one seeks to be justified before God through observing the law of Moses. I believe you have used the word "legalism" to describe this covenant. He clearly uses words like "dead to the law" and "delivered from the law" in speaking about the law of Moses. This does not mean that Paul had something against the law of Moses. He clarifies this later, saying that the law is holy, just and good. Rather, he is speaking about a kind of relationship to that law, a covenant of law, which is now changed by t
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Do you think that the law is sin - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > David Miller wrote: > > I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow > > who had married another man to have a "renewed" > > marriage contract or a new one. > > Slade wrote: > > The logic is wrong here. We are the widow who are then > > able to marry our True Husband. We are not divorced from > > Torah of Moses to marry Messiah, we are divorced from > > the "Torah of sin" (to quote D.Stern, I think) to marry Messiah. > > There are two questions involved here. First, I was just asking whether or > not a widow who married again was considered to have a renewed or new > marriage contract. Can I assume that your answer here is that a widow who > married again has a new marriage contract? > > The second question concerns the passage in Romans. You say that we are not > divorced from "Torah of Moses" to marry Messiah, but rather we are divorced > from "Torah of sin." Let's examine that, but first let me affirm that we > are indeed to divorce from the Torah of sin, and to consider ourselves dead > to the Torah of sin, that we might be married to Messiah. We agree on that, > but not on the Torah of Moses thing. Look at the passage for yourself. > > Romans 7:3-13 > (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she > shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from > that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another > man. > (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body > of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised > from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. > (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the > law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. > (6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were > held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of > the letter. > (7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known > sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou > shalt not covet. > (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of > concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. > (9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin > revived, and I died. > (10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto > death. > (11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it > slew me. > (12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and > good. > (13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, > that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that > sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. > > Verse 3. Clearly this is Torah of Moses. The Torah of Moses is what > prohibits adultery, but releases the woman to remarry in the case of death. > The Torah of sin does not prohibit adultery. So verse 3 is speaking about > the Torah of Moses. Agreed? > > Verse 4. You believe that this verse is talking about Torah of sin while I > believe it continues to talk about Torah of Moses. Why do I believe that? > Because of the previous and subsequent verses. > > Verse 5. The motions of sin, which were by the law... which law? The law > of Moses, as he explains in verse 6 & 7. > > Verse 6. Now we are delivered from the law... which law? The law of Moses, > as he explains in verses 7 & 8. > > Verse 7. Is the law sin? Well, if we were talking about the law of sin, > the answer would be yes, but no, we are talking about the law of Moses. > Therefore, verses 4, 5, & 6 leading up to this verse clearly has the law of > Moses in view. This is most abundantly clear by what follows next. He > actually quotes the law: I had not know lust, except the law had said, > 'Thou shalt not covet.' Which law is this? Clearly not the law of sin, but > the law of Moses. What Paul is explaining here is an interaction between > the law of Moses and the law of sin in our members. > > Verse 8. Without the law, sin was dead. Which law? Again, it is the law > of Moses. > > Look at verse 11: sin taking occasion by the commandment... which > commandment? The commandment that comes from the law of Moses. > > I could go on and on, but surely you get the point. The
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Marlin wrote: Do you think that the law is sin? No, the law of God is not sin. The law is holy and good. There is, however, a law of sin and death that works within our physical bodies. That was what we were talking about when I was referring to the "Torah of sin" using Slade's terminology. 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.
