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
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
: November 27, 2004 23:18
Subject: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical)
Unilateral Covenant
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
unilatera
ginal Message -
From: Bill Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 27, 2004 23:18
Subject: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
The Abrahamic covenant was not made with a holy people, nor did its validity depend upon a contractual fulfillment of its conditions on th
Hi Bill. I appreciate you making an effort to explain the "unilateral
covenant" idea. You certainly seem to take a more moderate position about
this than some of the others on the list, and I consider that to be very
helpful for the discussion.
There are a few passages of Scripture in regards
David states > I also question your
perspective that Abraham was only a recipient and not a participant in the
fulfillment of the covenant that he had with God . . .
I intended to be more specific than evidently I
was: I believe I said that Abraham was a recipient, not a participant in the
In a message dated 11/29/2004 1:07:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill. I appreciate you making an effort to explain the "unilateral
covenant" idea. You certainly seem to take a more moderate position about
this than some of the others on the list, and I consider th
In regard to BillyT and his commentary on unilateral and bi-lateral..
Bll writes: "And so we see that the movement of God's reconciling love toward Israel not only revealed Israel's sin but intensified it."
Bill probably did not have the following in mind, but this confirming thought came to my
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:49:16
EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes [that]:
In a message dated 11/29/2004 1:07:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"disagrees [w\ BillT] without being
disagreeable"
howso(?);
elaborate, pls
In a message dated 11/29/2004 9:50:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 11/29/2004 1:07:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "disagrees [w\ BillT] without being disagreeable"
howso(?); elaborate, pls
I am kind of stuck, here, G. If I explai
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22
10:45
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
In regard to BillyT and his commentary on
unilateral and bi-lateral..Bll writes: "And so we see that the
movement of God's reconciling love toward Israel not only revealed Israel's
sin but
er is not the one to ask!! I'll be laughing about this all
day!!
Jeff- the former George Carlin fan!
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004
1:17
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply rem
'agreeably' or
'disagreeably'?
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:12:54 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
..I run the risk of giving
David reason to "rebuke"
me.
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
Apparently
I am the only one who finds this piece
of work
(which I have received before via email)
to be an
abho
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Dear Dr.
Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have
Apparently
I am the only one who finds this piece
of work
(which I
is in the gospel accounts and is something that we all -- Jews
and Gentiles -- miss.
Jeff the Greek
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004
9:45
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Cov
-
From:
Terry Clifton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004
18:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral
Covenant
hTalk]
Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
Apparently
I am the only one who finds this piece
of
work (which I hav
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004
5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
okthanksizzyforpointingthisoutistillenjoyedit
jeffthegreek
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004
20:06
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
(I believe that our
wellsaidizzy
jeffthegreek
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004
20:13
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto
Thanks, Bill. I find it much easier to accept what you are saying as you
explain more and more. I am not quite there yet to accept the term
"unilateral covenant" but I am working on it. I have a couple of questions
that might help me investigate this further.
David Miller wrote:
Do you see f
I’mwonderingwhatdavidmillerandmichaeldouglasdidtoyoutodaytomakeyousuddenlystartspeakinggreek???Izzy
wellsaidizzy
jeffthegreek
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 30, 2004 18:31
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward
a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Dear Dr
ShieldsFamily wrote:
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Tuesday,
November 30, 2004
5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
ShieldsFamily
HAHAHAHAHAHAperhapstheygavehimawell-deservedspanking!--slade
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
ShieldsFamilySent: Tuesday, 30 November, 2004
21.11To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral
No,
that is not what it is about. It is making the point that, since
God’s word is
no longer
relevant, His laws against sodomy are irrelevant. And that’s a good
point—
if you
don’t believe in keeping ALL of God’s laws, how do you pick and
choose? Izzy
Duh! You choose the ones that a
Izzy wrote:
Apparently I am the only one who finds this piece
of work ... to be an abhorrent mocking of God and
His word.
You are not the only one, Izzy. Me too.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought
Izzy wrote:
Well, duh!, what are they?
[which laws are still in effect]
According to the Epistle of Barnabas, they are all still in effect. :-)
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 m
Guess I'll have to read that one after all. Iz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Izzy
ShieldsFamily wrote:
No,
that is not what it is about. It is making the point that, since
God’s word is
no longer
relevant, His laws against sodomy are irrelevant. And that’s a good
point—
if you
don’t believe in keeping ALL of God’s laws, how do you pick and
choose? Izz
In a message dated 11/29/2004 10:47:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks John, that was very kind of you.
And while this was not exactly what I had in mind, you are certainly on the mark: it works here too.
Blessings,
Bill
Et Al
Just as I suspected. The poin
In a message dated 11/30/2004 2:29:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uh, John,
I was rolling on the floor with this one! Now buddy, how am I to take this? I'm not offended by it, infact if you knew my sense of humor you would you would take this in a humorous way also. I as
In a message dated 11/30/2004 6:19:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'agreeably' or 'disagreeably'?
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:12:54 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..I run the risk of giving David reason to "rebuke" me.
Time will tell.
J
In a message dated 11/30/2004 6:46:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
Apparently I am the only one who
In a message dated 11/30/2004 5:40:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
terryitseemsthatyoumissedthepointtherearemanymanymanytorahobservantbeliversinyeshuatodayinfactiwillhavetocheckonthe
statisticsbutibeliveitisaround23millonstrongimsorrymydearbrotherthatyoufailtounderstandthi
illhaveoneofgeorgekilliansirishredsifyouplease
jeffthegreek
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004
0:49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
In a message dated 11/30
ent: November 30, 2004 23:13
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
> Izzy wrote:
> > Apparently I am the only one who finds this piece
> > of work ... to be an abhorrent mocking of God and
> > His word.
>
> You are not the only one, Izzy. Me t
#x27;m Chevy Chase and, you're not'.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 30, 2004 20:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
> Thanks, Bill. I find it much ea
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
ShieldsFamily wrote:
No, that is not what it is about. It is making
the point that, since God’s word is
no longer
relevant, His laws against sodomy are irrelevant. And that’s a good
point—
if you
don’t believe
If you 'keep' the first you keep 'em
all.
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 01, 2004 10:14
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Tow
In a message dated 11/30/2004 9:20:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Et Al
Just as I suspected. The point shared by yours truly was not on target with Bill's commentary --- and that is exactly why, in part, we write and share. You never know how or when God will
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004
9:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
If you 'keep' the first you keep 'em
all.
“Al
I am saying (read meaning) neither. Can you think
of a third or fourth possibility?
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 01, 2004 12:29
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004
9:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
If you 'keep' the first you keep 'em
all.
1
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 9:18
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(bibli
Glad to hear how discerning you all are up
there!!! J Iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004
2:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
In Canada
No ya
don't. And if I misunderstand, please elaborate on the
procedure.
--
slade
-Original Message-From: Lance
Muir
If you 'keep'
the first you keep 'em
all.
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
ShieldsFamily wrote:
No,
that is not what it is about. It is making
the point that, since God’s word is
no longer
relevant, His laws against sodomy are irrelevant. And
How?
-Original Message-From: Terry
Clifton
1.
Love God, more than anything or anybody2. Love your
neighbor as yourself.Keep these two and you fulfill all the law that is
still in effect.Terry
So which one forbids sodomy?
IzzyBoth.Terry
Love God, more than anything or anybody
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Keep these two and you fulfill all the law that is still in effect.
Terry
So which one forbids sodomy? Izzy
Both.
Terry
Terry, please point out where it says that
in “Love God and
We were given a knowledge of good and evil at the moment Eve bit into
the fruit. You would know that sodomy is evil without the law. As a
matter of fact, Lot knew that way before the law was given.
I am surprised you and Izzy did not know that! :-)
Terry
Slade Henson wrote:
H
In a message dated 12/1/2004 12:02:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, Lance, I honestly cannot. Can You??? Please answer: If someone only told you one rule: âLove Godâ, how on earth would you know how to do that w/o His commandments telling you how??? Izzy
Are you
jeffihesitatetosaythegreekthistimeconsideringthesubjectnatureofthispost
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004
21:09
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
In a message dated 12/1
ï
Actually, yes. I would say that because that's NOT what the text
says.
It
says, "Upon these two commands HANG the whole of the Torah and the
Prophets."
I see
a lot of "gone is Torah" talk, but no "Gone
are the prophets" talk.
Why
not...
I
mean, really... why not?
They're given
No,
Lance, I honestly cannot. Can You??? Please answer: If someone only told you one rule: “Love
God”, how on earth would you know how to do that w/o His commandments telling
you how??? Izzy
Are you saying that you do not believe that the whole law is fulfilled in the
two commandment
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:58
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
No, Lance, I
honestly cannot. Can You???
Please answer: If someone only
Lance wrote:
I believe that you are making what's called
a category mistake.
What makes you think that I am making a category mistake? The following
passage explains how the Torah passage concerning marriage is really about
Christ and the church. We understand relationships through what we
exp
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Lance wrote:
> I believe that you are making what's called a category mistake.
What makes you think that I am making a category mistake? The following
passage explains how the Torah passage concerning mar
Jonathan wrote:
... one can only take the metaphor so far until
it breaks. When you use the marriage covenant
to be equivalent to the unilateral covenant you
are going to run into problems.
I don't think I have ever argued equivalence, but maybe you need to define
what you mean by that.
My persp
nt: December 02, 2004 12:58
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
> Jonathan wrote:
> > ... one can only take the metaphor so far until
> > it breaks. When you use the marriage covenant
> > to be equivalent to the unilateral covenant you
> > are goi
In a message dated 12/2/2004 9:25:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you saying that you do not believe that the whole law is fulfilled in the two commandments -- or as Lance has so aptly put, the one commandment? the Gentile without the law in Romans 2 -- would he
Incidentally, I believe that the value of this metaphor of marriage is
so
high to God that this is why he declares homosexuality to be such an
abomination, and why we should all be against the homosexual marriage
agenda.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
SO very true, D
No one knew everything that God approved/disapproved until He
gave us His word. Be real. Izzy
Being real has nothing to do with question. It is not an answer --
only the _expression_ of bias with no real purpose in evidence. The
Gentile in Romans 2 was without a legal statement. H
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:53
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
No
one knew everything that God approved/disapproved until He gave us His
Romans 2 is referring to the fact that we
all have been born with a God-given conscience. (A position that Lance, at
least, will take umbrage with.) However, most people have developed a seared
conscience due to their own sin. Please note my evidence here: There are
“Christians” th
myth (regardless,
it's how the 'smarter folks' think:)
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:11:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:53
PM
>..most people have developed a
In a message dated 12/2/2004 7:56:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one knew everything that God approved/disapproved until He gave us His word. Be real. Izzy
Being real has nothing to do with question. It is not an answer -- only the _expression_ of bias with no rea
: December 02, 2004 22:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
myth (regardless,
it's how the 'smarter folks' think:)
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:11:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- Original Message
is but, says
..well you see the conclusion. Where, I ask, your honor is conscience 'at play'
in this scenario?
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 02, 2004 22:19
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
This was answered, with finality, by Jonathan. Thanks Jonathan.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: December 02, 2004 11:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
> Lance wrot
Conscience and the Imago Dei, discuss amongst
yourselves. Slade, what do you think?
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 02, 2004 22:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
I did answer.
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 02, 2004 11:18
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL
As to 'most people' having a 'seared conscience' I'm just wondering if
anyone can elucidate. The subject of 'conscience' is of great interest to me
just now.
Lance,
I’m not sure what the question is in
your mind. Are you aware of the fact that the more a person sins, the
l
ECTED]
Sent: December 03, 2004 09:01
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
As to 'most people' having a 'seared conscience' I'm
just wondering if anyone can elucidate. The subject of 'conscience' is of
g
one???) Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004
8:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a
(biblical) Unilateral Covenant
This is no joke that follows:I don't believe Jeffrey
Dah
Slade's paraphrase (with help from Aland and
Stern):
God shows no partiality: for those who-are-without-Torah sin, they
also perish without Torah; and those within Torah who sin, by Torah they will be
judged (2.11-12). (The hearers of Torah are not just with G-d, but the
doers of Torah wi
why America is not blessed:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:43:59 -0700 "Bill Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
..blessings are in
Christ
I
guess I missed the point.
-Original Message-From: Slade
HensonSent: Friday, 03 December, 2004 21.11Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
Slade's paraphrase (with help from Aland and
Stern):
God shows no partiality: for those wh
In a message dated 12/2/2004 8:19:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not wanting to get caught up in the controversy here, just trying to set it in the context of John's question (for my own benefit as much as for yours): "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by n
your hors
derves (my 'sic'--can't remember th spelg:) were great..
pls tell the chef
some potatoes'd be fine, too:)
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:10:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
.. I am ready for some
meat.
In a message dated 12/9/2004 8:51:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your hors derves (my 'sic'--can't remember th spelg:) were great..
pls tell the chef some potatoes'd be fine, too:)
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:10:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
.. I am ready for some m
Spoken
like a true Pharisee, eh, Terry? :)
Duh! You choose the ones that are still in effect.
:-)Terry
85 matches
Mail list logo
