Stone the flock.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005
10:14 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] JUDY SAYS
THAT THE WORD OF GOD NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION..TWOG IS SPIRITUALLY
Read 1 Cor 2:12-16, this is the teaching and this is
what I believe. Understanding rather than
some man's natural or carnal interpretation is the
problem.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:53:42 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These are two rather large
observations/statements. PLEASE
Do you have a "second witness?" Remember -- it is not binding (according to Judy) ifthe teaching is only taught on a single occasion.
jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 08:05:49
For my sake WILL YOU AND DAVID MILLER (who would
appear to believe as you do on this matter) explain how THE WORD OF GOD NEEDING
NO INTERPRETATION and, THE TWO OF YOU OFFERING INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS SAME WORD
(check yourself on this) ARE IN NO WAY CONTRADICTORY?
- Original Message
Since you didnt ask me, Ill
attempt to answer that. J I think those whose
agenda is to twist the meaning of scripture call it Interpretation. (Ill leave names out
of this!) Those who attempt to just read the simple meaning of a text call it Teaching. The only thing I
see we need
Since this Interpretation thingy is such a BIG problem, let's try a TEST again.Theory "There are MANY INTERPRETATIONS"Please provide ONE ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION (since there are MANY just ONE will do): JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not
I have more than twowitnesses:
Dust off your Bible and look at:
1 Cor 2:12-16 along with
1 John 2:27
John 14:26
1 Thess 4:9
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:17:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you have a "second witness?" Remember -- it is
not binding (according to Judy) ifthe teaching
its her
oft-reitierated argument for (defending her own) mindlessness radically
anti-intellectual
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:53:42 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These are two rather large
observations/statements. PLEASE DAVID (et al) comment on these?
Another way of
..so much so that
her interpretation of anyissuesinc the Bible/s is unreliable at
best
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:29:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
its her
oft-reitierated argument for (defending her own) mindlessness radically
anti-intellectual
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:53:42 -0500
except to those
whose minds are equally mutuallymade up ofmootness outa
mind
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:40:02 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..so much so that
her interpretation of anyissuesinc the Bible/s is unreliable at
best
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:29:56 -0700 [EMAIL
..parrots
proudlike peacox paradinga proof/text reflex: 'noRock
rocksunxeroxd'
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:52:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
except to
those whose minds are equally mutuallymade up ofmootness outa
mind
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:40:02 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thoytom Asse Coria Tushrump codsheadirustie,Mungrellimo whish whap ragge dicete tottrie,Mangelusquem verminets nipsem barelybittimsore,Culliandolt travellerebumque, graiphone trutchmore.Pusse per mew (Odcomb) gul abelgik foppery shig shagCock a peps Comb sottishamp, Idioshte momulus tag rag.Poem
I wonder why it didn't catch on?
===
Kevin Deegan wrote:
Thoytom
Asse Coria Tushrump codsheadirustie,
MungrellimWhereo whish whap ragge dicete tottrie,
Mangelusquem verminets nipsem barelybittimsore,
Culliandolt travellerebumque,
13 matches
Mail list logo
