In a message dated 10/25/2004 11:34:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
benevolent works (James) is [sic] necessary
benevolent works (James) are necessary -- don't want to cast further doubt on my Harvard education.
John
In a message dated 10/25/2004 11:30:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Its just funny, Judy. Really. Say it with me now "We are talking about the law and its defining moment resulting in the conscienceness of sin" and someone says, "I don;t care if you are consci
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:45:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt:
The disciples wouldn't have had a hope amongst you all, simple and unlearned
men depending on the Holy Spirit? How naive .
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:31:19 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:10:15 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:44:42 PM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I understand that it wouldn't float in theological circles John
but what's the differencebetween sin consciousness and being either co
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:44:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I understand that it wouldn't float in theological circles John but what's the difference
between sin consciousness and being either conscious or unconscious of the darkness
within one - just another way o
Judyt:
The disciples wouldn't have had a hope amongst you
all, simple and unlearned
men depending on the Holy Spirit? How naive
.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:31:19 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 6:48:33 PM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt:
I understand that it wouldn't float in theological
circles John but what's the difference
between sin consciousness and being either conscious or
unconscious of the darkness
within one - just another way of conveying the same
concept.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:22:21 EDT [EMAIL PROTECT
In a message dated 10/25/2004 9:11:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what does the Message say about 'regenerates' who think like this?
We are the Church. (regenerates ? -;) )
J
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:13:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
coveting what one cannot
possess (?) Think In and Out.John
Coveting huh? Who me???
Laura
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:41:56 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>[un]regenerate[s] cannot possibly understand the
Message...
||
>How could I be wrong if my presuppositions
are established in my preferences
what does the
Message say about 'regenerates' who think like this?
In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:43:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(isn't he your new you's daddy?)
-:)
J
(isn't he your new
you's daddy?)
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:14:50 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
something tells me that
Cornelius Van Til knows the new you
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:26:59 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:52:15 PM Pacific Daylight
In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:22:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
something tells me that Cornelius Van Til knows the new you
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:26:59 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:52:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr
something tells me that Cornelius Van
Til knows the new you
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:26:59 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:52:15 PM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rofx666! On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:56:28 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In
In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:00:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And where did you learn to speell, John--at Harvard? :-) Iz
Public schools graduate, Linda? Latter in the day, join us here on TT for real discussion.
John
I kind of like the way I spell. Correctn
In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:00:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John, Just a reminder: If GOD does not consider them to be Believers (ie: "confessed" only), then they are not Believers. We both know that "confessed" only "Believers" are NOT believers. So stop fudging plea
zing
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:18:01 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Terry said -- [Yeshua] was fully man, but not
natural man. When... a natural man walk on
water...
Then
slade said -- Peter [a man who walked on water] is not a natural
man.
OF
COURSE I
In a message dated 10/25/2004 7:40:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is wrong for you guys to talk about these burgers when most of us can't get them where we live ROTFL At least Kay said she'd try to look for the recipe. And just "What is sin anyway?" Laura
covetin
In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:41:43 PM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
Double-Double with Cheese has got to be the finest 'burger
around.
--
slade
It is wrong for you guys to talk about these burgers when most of us can't
get them where we live ROTF
In a message dated 10/25/2004 6:52:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt: Very funny John .. proves my point that you are full of yourself and don't take God's Word all that seriously.
Whoa, now wait a sec, Judy. I can attest to the FACT that John takes his Scripture s
In a message dated 10/25/2004 6:37:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Double-Double with Cheese has got to be the finest 'burger around.
-- slade
You have nailed it, my friend.
John
In a message dated 10/25/2004 6:48:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, if a passage is written within a certain worldview or mindset, it should be interpreted within that same worldview or mindset. In many ways, the Eastern mindset is opposite to the western mind
In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:52:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rofx666!
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:56:28 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 1:05:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt:
It's the scriptural way of seeing th
In a message dated 10/25/2004 6:31:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why bother John? You reject it as "done away with"
Close but no cigar.
JD
In a message dated 10/25/2004 1:03:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually the law brought in consciousness of sin, not birth itself.
jt: It was there whether they were conscious or unconscious
Judy, I have to laugh. Sorry. But "consciousness of sin" has nothing t
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:46:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jesus was man, but did not inherit a sin nature. The word "nature"
implies natural, and Jesus was no natural man. Jesus was supernatural!
He walked on water, he calmed the sea. He healed lepers whose b
ï
Terry
said -- [Yeshua] was fully man, but not natural
man. When... a natural man walk on
water...
Then
slade said -- Peter [a man who walked on water] is not a natural
man.
OF
COURSE IT'S MYTH! Once in a while posts on TruthTalk can convey sarcasm. Please
be forewarned.
--
slade
myth
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:00:50 -0400 "Slade Henson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> Peter..is not a natural
man.||
Terry,
Exactly right. But now you will be accused of not caring enough about
theology.
Izzy
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [TruthTalk] Jesus
John, Just a reminder: If GOD does not consider them to be
Believers (ie: "confessed" only), then they are not
Believers. We both know that "confessed" only
"Believers" are NOT believers. So stop fudging please. Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMA
And where did you learn to speell, John--at Harvard? :-) Iz
Public schools graduate, Linda? Latter in
the day, join us here on TT for real discussion.
John
ftr, y/ours is a pagan culture, due
in part to Christians who cling ever so tightly partic to
political myth
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:38:18 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth
(addressed wisely
in an earlier post today)
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:27:17 -0400 Judy Taylor <[EM
Your Bush hatred seeps out of your pores like a constant
ooze, Jonathan. Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004
5:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The
Kryptonite Theory of Sin
Jesu
I have
a pretty disgustingly good perspective on this "war" in Iraq, the one we had in
Korea, and the "police action" in Vietnam. Let us not forget, however, the
terrible mess we made for shipping oil in the old Czech Republic. (Anyone want
to know why the French hate the USA so much? It's a
Peter, then, is not a natural man.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Monday, 25 October, 2004 16.45
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus
He was fully man, but not natural man. When you, a natural man walk o
In
other words, if a passage is written within a certain worldview or mindset, it
should be interpreted within that same worldview or mindset. In many ways, the
Eastern mindset is opposite to the western mindset.
--
slade
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[
Judyt: Very funny John .. proves my point that you are
full of yourself and don't take God's Word all that
seriously.
Whoa, now wait a sec,
Judy. I can attest to the FACT that John takes his Scripture seriously. He and I
just spend a HUGE amount of time slicing and dicing each other with
myth
(addressed wisely
in an earlier post today)
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:27:17 -0400 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Daniel didn't ..criticiz[e] the government even
in a pagan culture.
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:45:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually the law brought in consciousness of sin, not birth itself. We needed the law to show that we were transgressing something. Birth only transfers the ability to sin on to future generations. You a
The
Double-Double with Cheese has got to be the finest 'burger
around.
--
slade
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 24 October, 2004
22.30To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] What i
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:32:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm listening John but I am not agreeing because the above is not the counsel of God. "By one man sin
entered the world and death by sin"
And why do you not quote the entire passage? could it be that it
In a message dated 10/25/2004 7:45:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All things does not include sin John, otherwise he would not be called holy in Mary's womb
Judy -- do you really think you need to reason this out for me? Nowhere do I include "sin" in my description of
Judyt:
True Daniels prayer below is for God's people and
Jerusalem because Judah were in captivity in a foreign
culture.
My point is that Daniel didn't sit around griping
about his situation and/or criticizing the government even
in a pagan culture. He refused to
worship the golden idol
Why bother John? You reject it as "done away
with"
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Slade Requests
John's Understanding
In a message dated 10/25/2004 12:41:35 AM
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:16:56 -0400 Judy Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As a believer I am called to pray for our President.
^
myth
--
E.g., there's
neither one word here for Darius the Mede, nor for Persia, nor
for Babylon, but there is total concern for (eschatol
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:45:41 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
10/25,
jt:
>Daniel didn't have a
problem with Nebuchadnezzar did he?
to the contrary,
Dan 2:24,5 indicate that Dan took certain steps to solve his problem/s with
Babylon
why are
you questiong thi
rofx666!
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:56:28 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 1:05:55 AM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt:It's the scriptural way of seeing things...
||
[John the Beloved :][God gave me these sciptures.] ..I no
He was fully man, but not natural man. When you, a natural man walk on
water and calm a storm, I may change my mind. In the meantime, I have
spoken. Let it be decreed.
TerryHughes Jonathan wrote:
Ah Terry if it was only so simple.
Of course Christ could be tempted. The bible clearly shows it
10/25,
jt:
>Daniel didn't have a
problem with Nebuchadnezzar did he?
to the contrary,
Dan 2:24,5 indicate that Dan took certain steps to solve his problem/s with
Babylon
why are
you questiong this(?); iow, why the
reluctance to criticize your gov't., even when it really deserves
i
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:44:11 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Actually the law brought in consciousness of sin, not birth itself.
jt: It was there whether they were conscious or
unconscious and mankind was still separated from God. This is why God cut
the
Ah Terry if it was only so simple.
Of course Christ could be tempted. The bible clearly shows it not only
occurring but says that He was tempted in all ways just as we are. You
are correct in that God wants fellowship with men (and women too). You
are incorrect that practicing sinners are banne
I have been following the squabbling y'all are doing about Jesus; could
He sin, did He have a sin nature, was He fully man or in the likeness of
man, on and on, ad nausem.
Could He be tempted? Some say yes because Satan made several offers.
Others say no because He rejected these offers. The
Actually the law brought in consciousness of sin, not birth
itself. We needed the law to show that we were transgressing
something. Birth only transfers the ability to sin on to future
generations. You are not a sinner because Adam sinned. That is the
Roman Catholic view of original sin.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:41:39 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:36:52 AM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Whoa. Let us be clear. You have not been reading
very carefully at all. No one has stated that Christ
was a sinner.
We have st
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:41:34 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hebrews 2:17 blows away Judy in the twinkling of an
eye.
Hebrews
217 Wherefore in all things
it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,
that he might be a merciful and faithful h
Judyt: Ideas and systems constructed by way of
theological reasonings.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:41:19 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
'theological construct' Just what is
that?`
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'theological construct' Just what is
that?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 25, 2004 09:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the Kryptonite
theory of sin
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:34:33 EDT
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:34:33 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 2:18:20 AM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:jt: On the cross John. Christ was made to be sin for
us who knew no sin. He took our place IOW he did not know sin before the
cross
I've got the "secret" recipe for In and Out
Burgers
I'll go look for it...
Kay
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 24 October, 2004
23.21To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Wha
I use
both Older and Newer when referring to the Testaments.
What
Testament did Paul, or anyone else at that time, have? They preached from it and
brought others to faith with it...
Kay
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAI
There is a reason that Jesus is spoken of
as Everyman. He as the new Adam represents far more than Himself.
If Jesus had a nature exactly like ours that does not make Him a sinner.
I am not sure why you can not differentiate between these two. One is the
possibility of being a sinner, t
Hebrews 2:17 blows away Judy in the
twinkling of an eye.
Hebrews 2
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high
priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the
people.
Now
Funny you should say that 'cause he often speaks
jabberwocky to me. However, since we both speak it`
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 25, 2004 08:03
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptoni
Judyt:
I've lost track of who said what but I could
probably find it in the archives.
If Christ had sin, then he was a sinner. If Christ
had a nature exactly like ours this also makes him a sinner.
You can't have it both ways. Look at the
writings of Job and what David says in Psalm 51. Both
Judyt:
That statement says it all
Jonathan.
Anyone with a sinful nature is by nature a sinner -
unless you are talking jabberwocky.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:35:43 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Whoa. Let us be
clear. You have not been reading very carefully at a
Judyt
Anyone born with a sin nature is a sinner by nature
John.
I'm not going to post the scripture because it
doesn't seem to make a difference to you people.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:39:06 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 10/25/2004 3:58:49 AM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EM
The 'spirit' of exegetical, hermeneutical,
theological, biblicist, linguistic etc. bondage hath visited thee thou woman of
Virginia. Thou art is 'possession' of a private thesauras. Will you share it?
(pretty please?)
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [E
Jesus Christ was not born a sinner. No
one has said that. Are you a speechwriter for Bush? The lies you continue to
spew forth are almost believable. Christ was born as a human; therefore Christ
had a human nature. Therefore Christ had a sinful nature. This does not mean
Christ was a
In a message dated 10/25/2004 3:58:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt:
Nor was he born a sinner. He resisted the lie and overcame by using the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.
None of us are.
In a message dated 10/25/2004 4:36:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whoa. Let us be clear. You have not been reading very carefully at all. No one has stated that Christ was a sinner. We have stated that Christ was human and had a sinful nature. BUT Christ never sinned.
Whoa. Let us be clear. You have not been
reading very carefully at all. No one has stated that Christ was a sinner. We
have stated that Christ was human and had a sinful nature. BUT Christ never
sinned.
JBH
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
In a message dated 10/25/2004 2:18:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the cross John. Christ was made to be sin for us who knew no sin. He took our place IOW he did not know sin before the cross. He was not born with a sin nature and he did not succumb to any temptation dur
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:56:28 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt:It's the scriptural way of
seeing things. You do not understand what I am about Jonathan and I did send a
half page of pure unadulterated scripture with no commentary at all which
validates that man is a spirit bein
'rather than the one assumed by the
incarnation'???
Would you like to 'hear' (2 cd's) an Australian
speak to this issue?
rom: Judy Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 25, 2004 06:40
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite
Theory of Sin
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:22:32 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Temptation is a sinful
appeal to our natural man, not our spiritual
man.
Judyt:
Temptation to sin is a spiritual issue John. Before temptations
to the flesh of A&E (which were the lust of the flesh, the lust o
In a message dated 10/25/2004 1:05:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judyt:
It's the scriptural way of seeing things. You do not understand what I am about Jonathan and I did send a half page of pure unadulterated scripture with no commentary at all which validates that man i
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:10:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Meaning whizzing past your ears
again, John? Those who state that Christ was a sinner because he came in the
likeness of Man do not realize that He was not IDENTICAL with us because He
was the M
In a message dated 10/25/2004 12:43:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another acquaintance (I got a million of 'em) of mine is listening to Stern's translation. I'd recommend it.
I recently purchased the commentary. Good book -- Jewish bias and all. Very useful.
John
In a message dated 10/25/2004 12:41:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For consideration: (1)A teacher acquaintance of mine refers to the "Older' Testament. I like that. (2)It is through the Incarnation of the Son of God that we could/should read this Older Testament.(3)In the
'understanding anthropology from a biblical
perspective'...God is 'Spirit'; 'Scripture(?) is spiritual' 'We are
spiritual' The obvious 'sticking point' for you, Judy, is THE INCARNATION.
So many have written so much in an attempt to shed light on this for you yet,
..
- Origin
In a message dated 10/24/2004 10:13:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John, Where is your response to SSS? Or is the speelling wrong? :-) Izzy
-:) -- the computer made the mistake; certainly not me.
J
In a message dated 10/24/2004 10:13:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me restate it: those who insisted on killing Paul were not Believers in messiah Yeshua. Izzy
They were "professed" believers. In the technical sense, your statement is true. In terms of First Chur
In a message dated 10/24/2004 10:13:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Meaning whizzing past your ears again, John? Those who state that Christ was a sinner because he came in the likeness of Man do not realize that He was not IDENTICAL with us because He was the Manifestation
In a message dated 10/24/2004 9:47:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
when did King James become a radical conservative?
Moments before writing the Declaration of Independence.
J
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:10:36 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
I don't get it either, Judy. Why
Primarily Spirit? Izzy
Judyt: Because God is Spirit and A&E were made "in His
image" Understanding anthropology from a Biblical
perspective rather than try
So, there is a word (term) in Scripture. God put
that there. I cited it, knowing what God meant. When you disagree with me
therefore, you are disagreeing with God. Get it?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Se
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:11:06 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Meaning what, exactly?
Iz
Judyt: I think Slade is
concerned about the separation of spirit, soul, and body but Paul who is a
Hebrew of the Hebrews wrote about it so I have no problem with
On
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:09:15 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message
dated 10/24/2004 10:18:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:How does God fellowship with the
sinner and avoid fellowship with sin? Judyt: I wrote the above in response to a statement either you or
Jo
Everyone who doesn't agree with my 'reading' of
Scripture is 'twisting Scripture'. Such persons should consider themselves
warned. The rest of you, wellcarry on doing what you're doing.
PS:Do a 'Google' for Historical Perspective:Plane
hits Empire State Building. Did anyone see this ref
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:27:27 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the cross John.
Christ was made to be sin for us who knew no
sin. He took our place IOW he did not know sin before
the cross. He was not born with a sin nature and he did not succumb to any
temptation during his ea
Judyt:
I don't recall writing your "myth" below Gary -
Don't remember the exact words on [1] at all.
[2] May be a remnant from Psalm 2 out of the
Amplified Bible which I did post; the focus
being how we should pay homage to (a loaded term)
and kiss the son lest his wrath be
kindled against
Jonathan writes:To sum it up for you:
I call your brand of Christianity Gnostic for two reasons:
1) You place primacy on the spiritual portion of the human. You
claim Adam and Eve were primarily spirit beings. This is pure
unadulterated Gnosticism. It is not the Hebrew nor Christian way
Bye, bye miss american pie...
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 24, 2004 17:43
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Importance of
This Election
And this from a Texan
cousin...
If
any of this worries
Oh ya? Ouch!
Chicken Licken'
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 24, 2004 20:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Importance of
This Election
In a message dated 10/24/2004 2:46:20 PM
Pacific Daylight
Ya been eatin' too much 'Greek soup' as, on this
occasion, a non-acquaintance of mine has said.
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 24, 2004 23:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite
Theory of Sin
Meaning wha
Thanks.
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 24, 2004 20:20
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite
Theory of Sin
There is a simple explanation to the hair-splitting, Lance. People
forget the Hebrew language and min
Another acquaintance (I got a million of 'em) of
mine is listening to Stern's translation. I'd recommend it.
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 24, 2004 20:38
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] What is
sin?
D.Stern gave four
For consideration: (1)A teacher acquaintance of
mine refers to the "Older' Testament. I like that. (2)It is through the
Incarnation of the Son of God that we could/should read this Older
Testament.(3)In the light of this the 'gospel' can be faithfully preached using
only the 'Older' Testamen
Do some checking on:Saddam trading oil for Euro's
and Peak Oil.
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 24, 2004 21:12
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Importance of
This Election
A
friend of mine wrote me an email. I thought
99 matches
Mail list logo
