Scripture does have its paradoxes, Dave, no matter how small and no
matter how "easily" explained they are (i.e. a simple one: a loving God who is
wrathful). The Hebrew mindset easily accepts the dichotomies while the
analytical mindset must explain them away. As you brought up in an earlier
I've
had LDS talmidim come to my home while in Delavan, Wisconsin. They were nice
people, but they were unable to get through their initial 10-15 minute spiel
before I was conversing with them on point of clarification,
etc.
For
you, would you be so kind as to explain something for me.
Well,
I guess it's done.
--
slade
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, 25 November, 2004
12.57To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Epistle of BarnabasSlade and DavidMA most interest
What do you know that underlies your saying 'how
the ANALYTICAL WESTERN MIND came up with an accepted (the)
trinity'?
I should like to hear (read) you expand upon 'YHVH
is not a Trinity and nor is he NOT a Trinity'
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL P
God is
into the freedom thing. Right now, Izzy, for you to determine if the change of a
day, you are tied to a chronometer somewhere that says some arbitrary moment in
the middle of the night is the change of the day.
God,
in His liberating way, gives us a precise time to determine the cha
There's also the book, "Lost books of the Bible and the forgotten books of
Eden" (ISBN 0-529-02061-0). Charlesworth, if I remember, has a hardbound
book of New Testament Pseudepigrapha to go with his two-volume set of OT
Pseudepigrapha. The Early Church Fathers series also has much of this
informat
In a message dated 11/26/2004 3:29:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These are reasons that I am hesitant to speak evil of questionable âevangelistsâ, etc., unless I am REALLY sure about them. Iâm sure I havenât thought this out completely, and would appreciate feedback from
I need
your address because we were going to snail mail you Slade's book on the Deity.
It's my fault, LanceI threw your address out. I can get you the book in the
mail today if I get your address...
Kay
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 11/26/2004 6:10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what's the fundamental diff betw the rise and fall of the 3rd reich as a story told by whose biographer/s(?) and a shrug that translates to 'i was starvd and i really thought you wouldn't mind if i tried to
In a message dated 11/26/2004 5:33:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, there are times when the spoken Choice has been preached to those who have already made their choice -- "pearls before swine" as they say.
John
Exactly. And I assume that is not the fa
In a message dated 11/26/2004 6:25:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those who see a conflicted God are themselves conflicted. Izzy
This is actually the most profound thing you have written (IMO) since I have been here. It stikes me as extremely important as a counsel
i suspect you
mean in terms of how lies become 'true'
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:27:32 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||Redundency is often the mother of
truth.
for ref, J had made
this observation:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:13:02 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
All of
us on this forum approach the thought of who God is from a different
perspective or viewpoint. Often our ideas about who God
is conflict with other pe
DaveH, it seems to me that the LDS have to have an explanation for
everything, even at the expense of being wrong. They cannot allow any aspect
of God to be unknown. They seem to think they understand God and His nature,
going way beyond what is scripturally revealed.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[
meaning that the
source of the perception 'schizo God' is TT
itself
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:13:02 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What I see being
explained on this forum is a God who is actually conflicted within
Himself. I call it the schizophrenic
God.
what is
schizophrenia; is the word employd correctly here; e.g., maybe it's
too tight of an
interpretation when 'multifaceted' (in a more positv sense) is
accurate(?)
ftr, the Ap Paul
speaks of 'covenants' (pl.)--check this out, too
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:13:02 -0500 "Jonathan Hughes" <
To:the three named Charles Perry Locke seems to make an appearance whenever
an LDS discussion is underway..H What's the deal with that?
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 27, 2004 12:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
YES!
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004
9:53
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the creation
account?
God
is into the freedom thing. Right now, Izzy, for you to determine if the change
of a day, y
Very good question. I have been around Mormans most of my adult life. I
still do not understand them. I think slade and Dave are about to enlighten
us all if ppl would back off with the inflamitory comments.
Jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PRO
No inflammatory comments from over here. I have relatives from Kolab so, am
equipped to participate in this conversation.
.
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 27, 2004 13:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
>
Slade Henson wrote:
God is into the freedom thing. Right now, Izzy,
for you to determine if the change of a day, you are tied to a
chronometer somewhere that says some arbitrary moment in the middle of
the night is the change of the day.
God, in His liberating way, gives us a
In a message dated 11/27/2004 7:48:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I need your address because we were going to snail mail you Slade's book on the Deity. It's my fault, LanceI threw your address out. I can get you the book in the mail today if I get your address...
K
In a message dated 11/27/2004 10:18:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To:the three named Charles Perry Locke seems to make an appearance whenever
an LDS discussion is underway..H What's the deal with that?
:-)
JD
Lance Muir
c/o Ontario Christian Books
125 Queen St. S.
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada
L5M 1K9
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 27, 2004 14:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Schizophrenic God
In a message dated 11/27
In a message dated 11/27/2004 10:26:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Very good question. I have been around Mormans most of my adult life. I
still do not understand them. I think slade and Dave are about to enlighten
us all if ppl would back off with the inflamitory commen
In a message dated 11/26/2004 6:11:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tonight I was struck by a title of a book, âBeyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theologyâ.
Yes -- by I. Howard Marshall. I have been reading this myself along with The Faith of Jeus Christ by Ri
In a message dated 11/26/2004 8:06:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: Do any Christians really understand the Trinity paradox?
An important aspect of "understnading" is positioning. Perspective is limited by proximity and often confused with the "truth" in spite of t
In a message dated 11/27/2004 6:35:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I guess it's done.
-- slade
Apparently. -- just when it was getting good.
sigh
JD
the unity of
God's Spirit, Person, and Son is virtually assured
in while not explained in
Scripture..at best, J's alleged 'schizo God' is speculative,
obviously, and perhaps even imaginative (Lance:)...one may inquire how God's
unity'd be rooted in alleged 'conflict' or 'conflictedness'
Okay.
They will go out in the mail on Monday...I think.
These
are uncorrected proofs, bound a couple of years ago. There is a newer copy being
worked on, which is much larger and better written (according to Slade). He
plans to use it as his dissertation paper eventually.
Kay
-Origi
That's
funny!, Terry!!
That makes a lot of sense,
but I am left feeling a little uneasy because along about the fourth day, God
called the light day and the darkness night. Now you tell me it's day
when night falls.:-)
while we're in this
thread..to me, actual Spiritual comm/*unity* turning on biblical
truth demythologizes JCs leadershp of his original,
historical, and current followers..e.g., when JC chose
Judas, did he a priori figure Judas would be lost..why..what
are the implications of losing Judas f
I'm telling you, G, you've really got to get Ray S.
Anderson's The Gospel According to Judas. I think you'll like
it.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 3:55
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
thx,
Bill
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:24:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm telling you, G, you've really got to get Ray
S. Anderson's The Gospel According to Judas. I think you'll like
it.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTE
No I don’t find it easy to
explain. My best “explanation” is that the Father is like the
star our sun, the Son is like the sunshine that we see lighting up the earth,
and the Holy Spirit is like the warmth of the sun that we feel warming
us. They are all the sun. They are all different.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004
9:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Assuming
the best / walking in love?
In a message dated 11/26/2004 5:33:32 PM Pacific Standard
Time,
You have mine already. I’d
like to add Slade’s book to my mountain of “books to read”.
(Can you take them with you when you go to heaven?) Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004
1:57 PM
To: [EMAIL
Sounds like dangerous territory to me---does
this mean “Beyond God’s Word; Moving from God’s Opinion to Man’s”. (yuk) Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004
2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: R
I see the Trinitarian concept merely a way to try to
understand the Hand of God in our/the world's life.
I have often thought the same thing
myself. Glad to hear it from someone else. I don’t think
there will be a test on the Trinity at heaven’s gate. Nobody
completely “gets it”.
That is a good point. So, then, why
did God make the “new” day start at sundown, instead of at sun-UP?
Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004
8:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the
c
Lance, here is the deal.
Many years ago I read a lot about Mormonism. My mission was to find out if
they indeed are Christians, as they claim to be. My years of reading,
talking to Mormons, visiting SLC (I was there on a business trip, but took
the opportunity to get to know the area, the people
Izzy in blue:
To be critical of another's speech speech is not to assume the worst os
another. But where has God called
us to be critical of another’s form of speech? Is there a Commandment to
speak/communicate in a certain way? Is it a sin not to communicate
according to the desires of
No one else on the forum commented at all (dead eSilence) on the
issue, but I hope tht others' eyes were opened on that day.
I think my friend DaveH
will go on record as stating many times on TT that I definitely do not consider mormons to be true Christ-followers.
(Doesn’t mean I do
Because it started at "Son up" (Gen 1:2)
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
ShieldsFamilySent: Saturday, 27 November, 2004
21.28To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] the creation account?
That is a good
point
Slade wrote
I don't necessarily have to accept Early Church Fathers' (ECFs) opinions
as absolute truth.
I agree that you do not have to accept the Early Church Fathers' opinions as
truth. You were the one who first appealed to the Early Church Fathers as
supportive of your position that this ep
Terry wrote:
2. God is God. He can make exceptions to His rules any time He wants to,
I have trouble seeing it this way. It seems to me that God is not
capricious. Capriciousness is the way of the false Roman and Greek gods,
not the Hebrew God.
One glaring example is Jesus dying on the cross.
The Abrahamic covenant was not made with a holy
people, nor did its validity depend upon a contractual fulfillment of its
conditions on the part of Abraham and his descendants. It was a unilateral
covenant which depended for its fulfillment upon the unconditional grace of God
and the unrele
Slade Henson wrote:
Scripture does have its paradoxes, Dave, no
matter how small and no matter how "easily" explained they are (i.e. a
simple one: a loving God who is wrathful). The Hebrew mindset easily
accepts the dichotomies while the analytical mindset must explain them
away
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH, it seems to me that the LDS have to have an
explanation for everything,
DAVEH: IF there is an explanation for everything, then is there a
reason why those who are searching for truth cannot find those answers?
even at the expense of being wrong.
DAVEH: Y
Slade Henson wrote:
I've had LDS talmidim come to my home while in
Delavan, Wisconsin. They were nice people, but they were unable to get
through their initial 10-15 minute spiel before I was conversing with
them on point of clarification, etc.
For you, would you be so ki
David Miller wrote:
Terry
wrote:
2. God is God. He can make exceptions to His
rules any time He wants to,
I have trouble seeing it this way. It seems to me that God is not
capricious. Capriciousness is the way of the false Roman and Greek
gods, not the Hebrew God.
TC: No
David Miller wrote:
... the text tells us that Abraham in league with God
was able to stop men from sleeping with his wife.
John Smithson wrote:
And why do you present this last idea? If you are going
to answer with more supposition, take a pass.
I am not interested in suppositional consideration
In a message dated 11/27/2004 6:19:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
like dangerous territory to me---does this mean âBeyond Godâs Word; Moving from Godâs Opinion to Manâsâ. (yuk) Izzy
You draw entirely too much meaning from your acquaintance with only the title of the
In a message dated 11/27/2004 7:53:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still curious about why you say that
they (the Early Church Fathers) hated the book.
Actually, DavidM, Slade corrected his use of the word "hated."
Jd
In a message dated 11/27/2004 8:11:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
He can make exceptions to His rules any time He wants to,
I have trouble seeing it this way. It seems to me that God is not
capricious.
Central to the idea of capriciousness is the notion of impulsivenes
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH, it seems to me that the LDS have to have an explanation for
everything,
DAVEH: IF there is an explanation for everything, then is there a reason
why those who are searching for truth cannot find those answers?
Absolutely! Ph
Contrary to popular belief, there is intellectual life on the high plains of Eastern Colorado. Saved and printed --- three of these puppies in two days. I may never buy another published work again.
John
In a message dated 11/27/2004 8:19:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECT
David Miller wrote:
I'm still curious about why you say that
they (the Early Church Fathers) hated
the book.
John Smithson wrote:
Actually, DavidM, Slade corrected his
use of the word "hated."
That's right. We agreed that "hate" was too strong of a word. I guess then
I should have said that I am
In a message dated 11/27/2004 8:38:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Smithson wrote:
>And why do you present this last idea? If you are going
>to answer with more supposition, take a pass.
>I am not interested in suppositional considerations.
I say this because we know
In a message dated 11/27/2004 10:30:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's right. We agreed that "hate" was too strong of a word. I guess then
I should have said that I am still curious about why you [Slade] think that
the Early Church Fathers considered the book to be s
60 matches
Mail list logo
