It’s dropped already-! Iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005
6:28 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation *Reprimand*
Ok, Judy. You have gone too far
plies to this post please. Subject line has
*Reprimand* in it. Read and obey. Let's move on.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:26
PM
Subject: R
Slade wrote:
> You and I hardly agree. Why is that?
> One post in about 200 I can agree with.
Judy wrote:
Possibly because you appear to be focused
in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word
(just a guess on my part)
John wrote:
>>> Possibly an insult. (just a guess o
Owner of the
forum.
--slade
-Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent:
Sunday, 16 January, 2005 14.27Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation
You are "stirring the pot" here John, that just
didn't need to be said..
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:26:17 EST [EMAIL PROTE
ï
You are "stirring the pot" here John, that just didn't
need to be said..
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:26:17 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 1/16/2005 7:38:01 AM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:jt: Possibly because you appear
to be focused in/on tradition r
What is the Talmud Slade?
Did you say yesterday that you had a paper to write on
the Talmud? jt
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:24:16 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
When
one thinks I focus on Tradition instead of Scripture, I guess I should just
laugh it off and say, "Hahahaha, g
You
got the order wrong, but nice try blaming JD for my sin.
--
slade
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
ShieldsFamilySent: Sunday, 16 January, 2005 12.59To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Private
It is funny that you think I am the one who stirrs the pot when it was Judy who
made the statement. LOL
Jd
And you appointed yourself to notify Slade
that he was insulted. Good job, JD. Izzy
In a message dated 1/16/2005 7:38:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word
(just a guess on my part)
Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part).
JD, why must you keep stirri
When
one thinks I focus on Tradition instead of Scripture, I guess I should just
laugh it off and say, "Hahahaha, great joke!"
I'm
going it ignore the hits when they come my way. After all, Messiah said I
am to turn the other cheek and He was NOT referring to actual physical
strikes.
That’s your choice. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005
9:40 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation
Izzy, I am not a part of this discussion, but I AM
Izzy, I am not a part of this discussion, but I AM
INSULTED BY IT. Maybe John was also.
Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005
10:37
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005
10:42 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard
Time
In a message dated 1/15/2005 8:55:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is NOT, read NOT intended as an insult JD
Tradition and God's Word do not mix and they do not blend they are like oil and water.
I am aware that this is not a politically correct thing to say but no in
This is NOT, read NOT intended as an insult
JD
Tradition and God's Word do not mix and they do
not blend they are like oil and water.
I am aware that this is not a politically
correct thing to say but no insult is intended.
jht
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:42:30 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:44:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt: Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I study God's Word
(just a guess on my part)
Possibly an insult. (just a guess on my part).
-- slade
The primary source of our [collective]
problems, in case you are curious, is the sheer lack of love on this forum...
(which the vassals of divisiveness do not know they are the ultimate
culprits and all other sources are in direct response).
Perhaps the
Thanks
for answering my question. Now I understand what you mean by "private
Interpretation."
--
slade
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:52:06 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
You
and I hardly agree. Why is that? One post in about 200 I can agree
with.
jt:
Possibly because you appear to be focused in/on tradition right now and I
study God's Word
(just a guess on
l other sources are in direct
response).
-Original Message-From: Judy TaylorSent:
Saturday, 15 January, 2005 13.57Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation
Slade why do I have the feeling that I am being
baited here and that you are not really interested in
the subjects
Slade why do I have the feeling that I am being baited
here and that you are not really interested in
the subjects you are wanting me to clarify for
you??
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:12:41 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Great. How does one interpret privately and how does
@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation
Yes I did allude to 2 Peter 1:20 because my belief is
that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" so this
would include 1 John 3:4
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:46:17 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAI
Yes I did allude to 2 Peter 1:20 because my belief is
that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" so this
would include 1 John 3:4
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:46:17 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Are
you saying that you were not alluding to 2 Peter 1:20? If you
, 2005 12.16To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
Interpretation
The original post is an object lesson
in "private interpretation"
God's Word clearly and plainly says: "SIN
IS LAWLESSNESS" (1 John
The original post is an object lesson in "private
interpretation"
God's Word clearly and plainly says: "SIN
IS LAWLESSNESS" (1 John 3:4)
John says it's not and tells me that I don't have a
clue as to the practice of lawlessness so here is a
contradiction.
I choose to believe God's Word and
Your post (that you could have remembered
writing easier than me retrieving it) is attached to this
email.
So we don't begin with a rabbit trail, What is
your definition of Private
Interpretation.
From: Judy TaylorSent:
Saturday, 15 January, 2005 09.52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Private
If you will send me my quote in the balance and context
I wrote it in Slade - I will be glad to oblige. judyt
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:43 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
If you don't mind, I'll do the David Miller thing and
start a thread based upon someone else's wr
27 matches
Mail list logo
