[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
did not JUST say Biblical Jesus. I defined the Biblical Jesus using
Martin's definition
DAVEH: You are losing me on this, Glenn. I thought Martin's
comments were related to cults. Did I miss something? Did he
also define "Biblical
Jesus"???
which
was a simple def
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message
dated 10/24/2002 9:11:39 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH:
At the same time, I picked up one called LETTERS TO YOUNG CHURCHES by JB
Phillips. It is similar in nature.
Phillips is interesting too
but I also like the Message.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
bottom line is I just would appreciate Mormons telling us what they believe
with all the "wisdom" added to it.
DAVEH: Huh?!?!?!?!Have I not explained my beliefs adequately?
I guess I just don't understand your above comment, Glenn.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
- I like you DaveL.
DAVEH: And I like you, Brother Glenn!
Thanks
for the laugh.
DAVEH: Huh!?!?!?!?...Did I use a smilie???
Of
course, I know you believe the missing parts of the Bible causes me to
be greatly under the influence of Satan.
DAVEH: Ahh Gl
If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born that way.
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IF
this is true (it sounds a little extreme and one sided) about J. B. Philips
it just proves the Mormons wrong again. Here God has persevered His
word even through J. B. Philips.
DAVEH: HmmI think you are right about that, Brother Glenn.
I was curious as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Biblical
paradox - The first shall be last. The last shall be first.
DAVEH: Do you really consider that to be a paradox, Glenn?
Do you not have an explanation (or several, for that matter) for that statement,
except to consider it a paradox?
I
do you not believe i
Pastor James PS Templeton wrote:
I
pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus! I never felt led to pray to the
Holy Spirit. To say Dear Holy Spirit, seems all wrong, yet in worshipping
and praising our God, we can surely say blessed Holy Spirit and acknowledge
the wonderful works of God wrough
Glenn - Blainer - Do you believe "Jesus is God's Son, second person of the Trinity? You seemed to have reworded it when you answered. I just cannot not get a yes or no. It's always qualified answer. I cannot get a yes or not.
This is not a trick question.
Where do I get this stuff? I get it
Here we go again with a yes but qualified. I even get a yes but qualified on my definition of Jesus Christ, God's son, second person of the Trinity.
Blainer) I would have nothing against reading it it if 1) I could get it
free of charge, and 2), I had time to read it. (:>)
I don’t think Satan can be bound in
the same way as a demon. It is possible to bind a demon in the Name of Jesus
and imprison it in the abyss so that it can no longer operate. If we could do
this with Satan we would have no more problems with him. I wish we had such
power available to us. J
Glenn - Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity. Mormons do not belive that, correct? I don't expect to get a simply yes or no without qualifications. I'm slow but I have figured this out.
Concerning Biblical words in the Bible...there are no English words in the B
Sounds like Satan has the power over you. I don't believe he does over me. Greater is he that is in me, than he that is in the world.
Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4:7. I have the power throught the blood/name of Jesus to send the devil running away. Do you not believe th
My comments mean that when Mormons say, "yes" it is not yes. When Mormons say "no" it is never no. It is always with chainging word meanings or later on coming back claiming it was not "yes'" or it was not "no".
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bottom line is I just would appreciate Mormons telling
Glenn - No, I don't think you lie from your mind. I have repeatedly said this. BUT what you say IS a lie. A lie as defined as not correct. The reason is found in the Bible in 2 Cor. 4:4.
The New American Standard Bible Book of 2 Corinthians
Chapter 4 - Read Chapter - Click for Chapter Audi
If Phillips were correct, the verse shosws no endorsement of dead baptism.
I could say the Christians in my church went to the movies. That does not endorse them. IF some sect of Christians did this, it is not endorsed in the Bible. AGAIN, I love for Mormons to go do this. It wastes their tim
15:29 - [In Context|Original Greek]Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
he New American Standard Bible Book of 1 Corinthians
Chapter 15 - Read Chapter - Click for Chapter Audio
Study Res
I gave you a paradox. What's the problom? Do you not consider it a paradox?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Biblical paradox - The first shall be last. The last shall be first.
DAVEH: Do you really consider that to be a paradox, Glenn? Do you not have an explanation (or several, for that matter) f
Blainer wrote:
> You make this sound so absolute!! In
> actuality, the papyrus you refer to was
> only a fragment--not the entire papyrus.
Actually, not *A* fragment, but rather a total of twelve fragments if we
include one fragment from Joseph Smith's Alphabet and Grammar material.
Scholars ha
Glenn to James - Here what you said.\
The Trinity is man?s definition of Godhead. Can man define our Infinite Godhead? No one can claim that the Westminster Confession has the same level of inspiration as the Scriptures. James Templeton
Then you said:
I don?t like the word Trinity either, and I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
- Blainer - Do you believe "Jesus is God's Son, second person of the Trinity?
You seemed to have reworded it when you answered. I just cannot not
get a yes or no. It's always qualified answer. I cannot get
a yes or not.
This
is not a trick question.
Where
do I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
- Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity.
Mormons do not belive that, correct?
DAVEH: Like I've intimated before.I don't know if I believe that
because I don't understand what you mean by "Trinity"...Do
you??? If so, please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
gave you a paradox. What's the problom?
DAVEH: What you gave me is not a paradox.
Do
you not consider it a paradox?
DAVEH: I guess you need to define "" from your Protestant perspective.
There is simply nothing paradoxical about the that statement as I see it.
Gentleman,
A paradox, properly speaking, is not a contradiction, but rather an apparent
contradiction. If there is no explanation, then it can only be considered a
paradox if it is believed that an explanation will be learned to explain it
some day. Otherwise, it is a contradiction. Can we at l
James Templeton wrote:
> I pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus!
> I never felt led to pray to the Holy Spirit.
> To say Dear Holy Spirit, seems all wrong,
> yet in worshipping and praising our God,
> we can surely say blessed Holy Spirit and
> acknowledge the wonderful works of God
> wrought by
FALWELL CONFIDENTIAL
DATE: October 25, 2002
FROM: Jerry Falwell
COMPULSORY HOMOSEXUALITY
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet. (Romeo and Juliet. Act ii. Sc. 2.)
What's in a name? If the name is diversity, it is comprised of falsehood, deceit a
Glenn wrote:
> No, I don't think you lie from your mind.
> I have repeatedly said this. BUT what
> you say IS a lie. A lie as defined as not
> correct.
Let's keep our definitions straight.
A lie is deliberately saying something that is not true, or to deliberately
leave a false impression even
Ok
A paradox, properly speaking, is not a contradiction, but rather an apparent
contradiction. If there is no explanation, then it can only be considered a
paradox if it is believed that an explanation will be learned to explain it
some day. Otherwise, it is a contradiction. Can we at least agr
I use the word Trinity because it is a perfectly good Biblical word. I don't choose to let cults change vocabulary. Furthermore, the word Trinity exposes the Mormon deceit (lie) of believing in the Biblical Jesus.
IF we go by what you recommend, then must speak in Greek (and a dead Greek at that)
THEN YOUR ANSWER IS NO. WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT? I do not get straight answers out of a Mormons.
DAVEH: Then why use a word that is not Biblical? Simply change your above comment from.. "Christians believe Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity." ..to...
Oh, no, my friend. I have heard all of this stuff on TT about us becoming gods, that Jesus is created, sex in heaven, etc,. I cut through the deceit (lies) and exposed it for what it is.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn - Blainer - Do you believe "Jesus is God's Son, second person of the Trinity?
Blainer) Well, OK. I guess the answer is "yes." That won't cost me any
money to say that. It is just that I am not sure what you mean when you
include the word "Trinity." If this word has just general meaning, OK,
but if it has some special meaning, in reference to some thing or event
in parti
Blainer) If "Trinity" means the same as "Godhead," and does not refer
to some special definition from some council of the past, then the answer
is that Mormons definitely believe Jesus is God's Son and is the second
person in the Trinity (Godhead). However, I have to add that Jesus and
his Fathe
A fundamental truth, David (:>)
BlaineB
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:03:34 -0700 Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born that
> way.
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~
> Dave Hansen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.langlitz.com
> ~
Glenn wrote:
> I use the word Trinity because it is a
> perfectly good Biblical word.
The word "Trinity" is NOT a Biblical word. Accepting the idea of a Trinity
might be Biblical in that it is consonant with the Bible, but the word
"Trinity" itself is not found in the Bible; therefore, it is not
I received the following post today. It made me laugh, so I thought maybe
some of you would enjoy it too. :-)
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
A husband looking through the paper came upon a study that
said women use more words than men. Excited to prove to his
wife his long-held contention th
Blainer wrote:
> Well, OK. I guess the answer is "yes." That won't
> cost me any money to say that. It is just that I am
> not sure what you mean when you include the word
> "Trinity." If this word has just general meaning, OK,
> but if it has some special meaning, in reference to some
> thing
I can't believe you can say this. Of course it is a Biblical word. According to this legalism no ENGLISH WORD IS BIBLICAL.
Glenn wrote:
> I use the word Trinity because it is a
> perfectly good Biblical word.
The word "Trinity" is NOT a Biblical word. Accepting the idea of a Trinity
might be
Names are important. God named things. Evil needs to be named. If names are not important, I will start calling you Fido.
Personally, I would like to drop the label "Trinity" and use Biblical
language like "Godhead." I wish we also could drop our designations of
"Mormon" and "Protestant." Let
Following is another link to a National Geographic article on the ossuary of
James. It has a little bit more information.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbo
x.html
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMA
No offense taken, but total 100% disagreement. Trinity is a perfectly good word. You let Jeff deceive you. My point, was Mormons can never give a yes or no. WHY??? Because they are a cult.
Glenn, no offense intended, but your interaction here is so blatantly biased
and false, how can
To remove the Biblical word "Trinity" is compromise to get along with a cult that believes Jesus and Satan are brothers. I don't mind standing alone.
Glenn wrote:
> Names are important. God named things.
> Evil needs to be named. If names are not
> important, I will start calling you Fido.
LOL. I guess you need to give me some name to differentiate me from your
BIG dog that Laura told us about. :-)
I agree that names are important, but if
OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no? Do you believe that Jesus is God's son, second person of the Godhead? Yes or no? Godhead and Trinity are the same to me. Do you believe tht Jesus is God's son, second person of the Trinity as defined by DavidM? Yes or no?
Glenn wrote:
> Names are imp
Glenn wrote:
> To remove the Biblical word "Trinity" is compromise
> to get along with a cult that believes Jesus and Satan
> are brothers. I don't mind standing alone.
It is NOT compromise in order to get along. It is to facilitate
communication. The word "Trinity" originally had the intent of
Glenn wrote:
> OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no?
> Do you believe that Jesus is God's son, second
> person of the Godhead? Yes or no? Godhead
> and Trinity are the same to me. Do you believe
> that Jesus is God's son, second person of the
> Trinity as defined by DavidM? Yes or no?
Tha
David Miller wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no?
> > Do you believe that Jesus is God's son,
DAVEH: Yes.
> second
> > person of the Godhead? Yes or no?
DAVEH: Yes.
> Godhead
> > and Trinity are the same to me.
DAVEH: I disagree.
> Do you believe
> >
Here we go again. I just can't get answers.
Red is not red and blue is not blue. Red is black. Blue is white. And frankly, the color white does not exist. How you I know this chair I am sitting in is a chair? I don't know it. I have been told all my life it is a chair, but that is just what
Glenn to DAveH - You just called me a liar. I told you I believe the Trinity and Godhead are the same. You said you disagree. HOW in the world can you disagree that I believe the Godhead and Trinity are the same?
PS. I am not offended you called me a liar. I quite like it. It tells me a lo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn
to DAveH - You just called me a liar.
DAVEH: Do you really think so, Glenn. Go back and read it again.
And..I'd be curious if any other TTers understood my answer in the
same way that you do.
I
told you I believe the Trinity and Godhead are the same. You
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here
we go again. I just can't get answers.
DAVEH: Huh?!?!?!?!..What do you think those below comments are
following my name???
Red
is not red and blue is not blue. Red is black. Blue is white.
And frankly, the color white does not exist. How you I know this
c
Glenn wrote:
>>> OK, Mormons will I ever get a yes or no?
>>> Do you believe that Jesus is God's son,
DAVEH:
>> Yes.
Glenn wrote:
>>> second person of the Godhead? Yes or no?
DAVEH:
>> Yes.
Glenn wrote:
>>> Godhead and Trinity are the same to me.
DAVEH:
>> I disagree.
DAVEH:
>> I've answered
The below is how I hear you say yes to a question and then turn around and explain away yes.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here we go again. I just can't get answers.
DAVEH: Huh?!?!?!?!..What do you think those below comments are following my name???
Red is not red and blue is not blue. Red is
For the record I have defined Trinity over and over. Trintiy and Godhead are the same. For the record I ask for a yes or no. For the record I did not get it on Trinity after I defined it. I get more and more Mormons spin. I'm tired of this beating around the bush. I give up. Have a good d
54 matches
Mail list logo
