In a message dated 11/24/2004 8:18:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 11/24/2004 7:01:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not bring a charge against John. I only mean to express to him in a
clear way how blasphemous his words soun
David Miller wrote:
... saying that Abraham was willing to have his wife
sleep with men of power in order to protect himself.
Unbelievable.
John wrote:
Here , you are clearly denying Gen 20:11.
Why, I do not know. Perhaps in your zeal to
criticize, you have forgotten to read the text.
Following i
I read this thread and attempt to find out why you (David) or so opposed
to the realization that Abraham and King David both sinned. You seem to
want to do almost anything to prove your interpretation. Me thinks you
doth protest too much. Never have I seen anyone attempt to explain away
Abraham'
In a message dated 11/24/2004 10:34:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This text says nothing about Abraham being willing to have his wife sleep
with men of power in order to protect himself. What this text shows is
Abraham willing to refer to his wife as his sister, and he
David Miller wrote:
David Miller wrote:
... saying that Abraham was willing to have his wife
sleep with men of power in order to protect himself.
Unbelievable.
John wrote:
Here , you are clearly denying Gen 20:11.
Why, I do not know. Perhaps in your zeal to
criticize, you have forgotten to read
Jonathan wrote:
In fact, it is Abimelech who is declared righteous (God
says, "I know you did this in the integrity of your heart")
in this situation, not Abraham. I repeat, Abraham was
not righteous in this narrative.
Sorry, Jonathan. I don't buy it. While you certainly are correct in
noticing
John S. wrote:
In the previous sentence, you speak of killing Abraham
to "make his beautiful wife available to them" and in the
next breath you seem to insist that Abraham was not offering
his wife sexually to them. So when you argue for the availability
of his wife to them, were you thinking "c
THE MESSIAH WHO LIVES IN ME. And the life I do still live in the
flesh, I live WITHIN THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE SON OF GOD, who loves me and
gave himself for me.
Let's keep the focus where it ought to be.
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant sorry -- the proof read version
> Jo
Lance Muir wrote:
I HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED WITH THE MESSIAH . I am, however, alive--but it isn't
me, IT'S THE MESSIAH WHO LIVES IN ME. And the life I do still live in the
flesh, I live WITHIN THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE SON OF GOD, who loves me and
gave himself for me.
Let's keep the focus where it ought
VE BEEN CRUCIFIED WITH THE MESSIAH . I am, however, alive--but it isn't
me, IT'S THE MESSIAH WHO LIVES IN ME. And the life I do still live in the
flesh, I live WITHIN THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE SON OF GOD, who loves me and
gave himself for me.
Let's keep the focus where it ought to be.
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:32
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant sorry
-- the proof read version
> DM spoke of having a bias 'to justify Abraham and David'.>
> Galatians 2:15-21 'We are Jews by birth, not 'Gentile sinners.' Bu
In a message dated 11/24/2004 9:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"blast you into the next judgment"? LOL. I think you are getting a little
excited here. Context, John.
Read you response to me, DAvid. Context is what I have. Implying that I am in danger from a wra
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 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
DAVID:
I haven't changed anything about what I said. I caution you about
surmising evil motives on the part of Abraham that are not established by the
text. Making false charges against a man who is in covenant with God is
dangerous.SLADE: Making
false charge against a man is dangerous.SLA
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:
> There is
nothing, as in "not a word" in the biblical text that
> tells us that Abraham stopped Abimelech from
sleeping
> with his wife
Slade wrote:
Does God preemptively punish us for sins that
we might/will do in the future? Then refer
to Gen 12.15-19.
I don't think God preemptively punishes anyone for possible future sin,
Slade. If anything, this suggests to me that Pharaoh took Sarah against
Abraham and Sarah's will. Then P
Do you agree that there is nothing
in the text that says that Abraham was willing for men to sleep with
his wife? The text only says that he was willing to define his
relationship to her as brother and sister.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
In a message dated 11/29/2004 10:06:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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:
>There is nothing, as in "not a word" in the biblica
Terry wrote:
He had what we would call a motive, David.
I agree that the text shows that he had motive.
Terry wrote:
He was more motivated to keep his head
than he was to keep his wife.
This is where I start to part ways. I am not convinced that he ever
expected to lose his wife.
Let me ask you
Amen. The voice of wisdom, David. Izzy
-Original Message-
I don't know all the answers, but I am careful not to speak evil of a man
favored by God.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ough
David Miller wrote:
Terry wrote:
He had what we would call a motive, David.
I agree that the text shows that he had motive.
Terry wrote:
He was more motivated to keep his head
than he was to keep his wife.
This is where I start to part ways. I am not convinced that he ever
expected to lose his
Terry wrote:
At the same time, he [Abraham] is one of the last people that I would pick
to be my hero. To me, he was just a nobody from nowhere with little
talent for anything beyond being a shepherd.
I can understand your perspective, which is what makes God's favor toward
Abraham so interesti
I am not out to crucify Abraham. At the same time, he is one of the
last people that I would pick to be my hero. To me, he was just a
nobody from nowhere with little talent for anything beyond being a
shepherd.
Terry
How many other men offered to sacrifice
their only beloved s
In a message dated 11/30/2004 8:12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
God obviously does not see things the way we
mortals do. From God's point of view, Abraham's faith stood out in a very
extraordinary way, just like a man who was 100 foot tall would stand out to
us.
I fi
DavidM:(I can) see (by trying) through God's eyes. Sorry, you just answered
my last post.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 30, 2004 23:09
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant sorr
[TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant sorry -- the proof read version
> Terry wrote:
> > He had what we would call a motive, David.
>
> I agree that the text shows that he had motive.
>
> Terry wrote:
> > He was more motivated to keep his head
> > than he was to
David Miller wrote:
God obviously does not see things
the way we mortals do.
John Smithson wrote:
Seems like you do not include yourself in that
first sentence. Can you see why I woould [sic]
think this is a problem?
I do include myself in this first sentence. You put too much confidence in
you
count when
addressing you in future.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: December 02, 2004 10:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant sorry -- the proof read version
> David Miller wrote:
> >>
Lance wrote:
DAVID: ARE YOU A PROPHET? You speak as if you
occupied such an 'office'. It would help me if you would
answer yes/no then, supplement that with an accompanying
explanation. I ask because if you are so seen by God, yourself
and, others I should like to take this very seriously into acco
ecember 03, 2004 23:49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant sorry -- the proof read version
> Lance wrote:
> > DAVID: ARE YOU A PROPHET? You speak as if you
> > occupied such an 'office'. It would help me if you would
> > answer yes/no then, supplement that w
DavidMs prophetic
office? you've never askd for one--how much does it
cost?
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:40:45 -0500 "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:[DavidM:]
>individuals have already published that they
reject my prophetic office
||
Lance wrote:
David: Outside Scripture and personal engagement, who/what
do you value in this area? For instance(s) Rick Joyner, Graham
Cooke, Bill Hamon, Peter Wagner, George K. Otis, Jr., Jack
Deere, Cindy Jacobs, Ed Silvoso, Francis MacNutt, Liberty
Savarde, Clinton E. Arnold, Neal Lozano
Hi
[TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant sorry -- the proof read version
> Lance wrote:
> > David: Outside Scripture and personal engagement, who/what
> > do you value in this area? For instance(s) Rick Joyner, Graham
> > Cooke, Bill Hamon, Peter Wagner, George K. Otis, Jr., Jack
> >
34 matches
Mail list logo
