relativ to the
thred, what exegetical 'data' (in th sens of Slades cncpt,
below) both supports and reconciles the underlnd commnts,
ff(?):
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:51:44 -0500 "Jeff Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
||
It is through Abraham that God promises to bless all of
man
Funny, I laid in bed thinking about this
very topic this morning…counting down to His glorious return!!! J Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004
6:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk
Obviously not if one wishes to comply with
God’s word. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004
4:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Unilateral covenant
Just a 'thought exper
rs
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
December 08, 2004 05:50
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
No Lance, that would be impossible, God
would not have blessed His chosen people had they taken matters into
their own hands. God, in the first draft (Abrahamic Covenant
Thanks for your response. You said 'this lifetime'.
Please enlarge upon this.
- Original Message -
From:
Jeff
Powers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 08, 2004 05:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
No Lance, that would be impos
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004
5:07
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
Just a 'thought experiment':Have any ever come
accross the notion, 'sacred space'? Might Israel, prio
--- Original Message -
From:
Jeff
Powers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 07, 2004 16:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
Gary is this what you were looking for?
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:52:02 -0500 "Jeff Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 07, 2004 23:20
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
In a message dated 12/7/2004 7:50:18 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
That bothers me, but until you change, there is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. It is just that all us have this in common to one degree or
another -- we all think we are right and until the other(s) cahnge,
there is nothing that can be done about.
=
Ain't that the truth!
In a message dated 12/7/2004 7:50:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That bothers me, but until you change, there is nothing I can do about it. :-)
Terry
Ahh. The humility of it all !! I am sure glad I am not like you!!
Not like me? You mean that you are not sur
(..ex.e.get.i.cal.ly..in Gen 15, maybe Moses
nuances betw two words 'offspring' and 'descendants'...
lit.er.ar.i.ly..one could argue that Moses' big ideas there revolve
around the subtle positioning of his (two)
words..the.o.log.i.cal.ly..one short passage, two
big ideas?
beynd
that...h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/7/2004 3:09:40 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We
are getting along. We just do not agree.
That bothers me, but until you change, there is nothing I can do about
it. :-)
Terry
Ahh. The humility of it all !!
In a message dated 12/7/2004 7:27:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ahh. The humility of it all !! I am sure glad I am not like you!!
I forgot the :-) (I just can't bring myself to say "happy face.")
John
In a message dated 12/7/2004 3:09:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are getting along. We just do not agree.
That bothers me, but until you change, there is nothing I can do about it. :-)
Terry
Ahh. The humility of it all !! I am sure glad I am not like you!!
Slade Henson wrote:
P.S. If Terry and I are not getting along, then
it is quite clearly my fault. I simply did not want to waste his nor my
time.
We are getting along. We just do not agree.
That bothers me, but until you change, there is nothing I can do about
it. :-)
Terry
PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
interestg
comment, but no
simply, Slade, on
the front burner here is how to get along better--it's possible, and, i
suspect we'd tend to agree more, conversely disagree/argue less, with more
emphasis on accurate analy
te! Izzy, are
you following this? Have you figured out the birth of Yeshua or would you like
me to post all the juicy details for that?
Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004
17:45
Subject: Re: [
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'look
at lifetime tile roof' while their bamboo walls're swayin' in twistrs
of exegetical myth :)
What a vivid mental picture this conjures up!
Terry
interestg comment,
but no
simply, Slade, on
the front burner here is how to get along better--it's possible, and, i suspect
we'd tend to agree more, conversely disagree/argue less, with more emphasis on
accurate analysis of texts such as Gen 15, which is one source of
legitimate disagreem
he animals? The ravenous birds attempting to eat the
cut animals?
Please
do NOT say "all of the above!!!"
--
slade
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
well, have you postd an exegetical comment on this, Slade?
(if you don't
mind, point it out, pls)
was
wondrg abt Jeff's 'literary, exegetical, and theological
understndg of Gen
15?' (?)
^
well, have you
postd an exegetical comment on this, Slade?
(if you don't mind,
point it out, pls)
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:2
David:What series of questions would you ask and answer of yourself on
behalf of a novice like myself to serve to keep this short?
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: December 04, 2004 14:09
Subject: Re:
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
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
||
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
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
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:
> >>
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
DavidM:As you used with such frequency the expression 'speak evil of a man
favored by God', would you kindly elucidate. Thanks
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 30, 2004 20:57
Subject: Re:
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
Hmmm let's see here..
It seems that only a few were deemed righteous in Genesis and I don't remember
his name being on the roster. Now, there are righteous people not listed in the
Genesis account, but I don't recall the man doing anything terrible in the
Genesis account, either
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
In a message dated 11/30/2004 7:58:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was thinking of you when I said, "some praise Abimelech," but I was
thinking of Jonathan when I said, "and declare him righteous." Of course,
Jonathan was speaking about this particular situation. So y
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
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
Slade wrote:
Oh,
no, Dave. I NEVER claimed Avimelekh was righteous.
I indicated He obeyed the voice of God when that voice
was revealed to him, and I said, "Kudos!"
I was thinking of you when I said, "some praise Abimelech," but I was
thinking of Jonathan when I said, "and
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
David Miller wrote:
Terry wrote:
Sorry, but you cannot explain that any other way than that God may
favor one of His creations over another.
There is no doubt that God favors some over others. The question is
why. Unfortunately, we can't seem to agree among ourselves that God
favored Abraham o
Oh, no, Dave. I NEVER claimed Avimelekh was righteous.
I indicated He obeyed the voice of God when that voice was revealed to him, and
I said, "Kudos!"
-- slade
-Original Message-
From: David Miller
Some here blame Abraham
and shake the finger of shame at him,
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
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
Terry wrote:
Sorry, but you cannot explain that any other way than that God may favor
one of His creations over another.
There is no doubt that God favors some over others. The question is why.
Unfortunately, we can't seem to agree among ourselves that God favored
Abraham over Abimelech in the
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
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.
David Miller wrote:
Terry wrote:
God is God. He can make exceptions to His
rules any time He wants to,
David Miller wrote:
If we come to an understanding that God has bent the
rules for someone, that is a warning flag to me that there
are some false assumptions being held.
Terry wrote:
Your warn
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
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
be unjust
treatment.(based on a parable)
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 29, 2004 11:24
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
> Terry wrote:
> > God is God. He can make exceptions to His
> > rules any time
Terry wrote:
God is God. He can make exceptions to His
rules any time He wants to,
David Miller wrote:
If we come to an understanding that God has bent the
rules for someone, that is a warning flag to me that there
are some false assumptions being held.
Terry wrote:
Your warning flag may be malfun
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
>How bizarre! Wouldn't the fact that we have sent men to the moon and back
>kinda confirm that the earth was moving Izzy
Did you know that the people who first thought of these ideas were considered
liberals in their d
In a message dated 11/25/2004 9:48:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The principle here, if your teachers would have had better understanding to then teach you, is the Second Temple hermeneutical principle called Kol v'Chomer which means Light and Heavy.
these Temple hermene
- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:13
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
>How bizarre! Wouldn't the fact that we have sent men to the moon and back
>kinda
exactly
- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 14:07
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
And the Holocaust. Iz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAI
And the Holocaust. Iz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
not really there are many that belive the space program to be a
Izzy,
the operative word here is "yet"
Jeff
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004
10:48
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
Jeff, dont let the
turkeys get you down. At le
not really there are many that belive the space program to be a hoax
Jeff
- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:13
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
How bizarre! Wouldn&#
ï
yes
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004
10:13
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
Do you understand why I included this as an
illustration? Surely you've encountered a WQ this
It was a first for me.
- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 28, 2004 10:47
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
> Maybe strange, but this is a new weirdness! Kind of like deciding that
Jeff, don’t let the turkeys get you down. At
least he isn’t flying planes into buildings (yet). Izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Powers
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004
9:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Unilateral
hTalk] Unilateral covenant
Don't YOU consider SOME of the views you've encountered on TT bizarre? I
shan't identify which but, I do.
- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 28, 2004 10:13
Su
Don't YOU consider SOME of the views you've encountered on TT bizarre? I
shan't identify which but, I do.
- Original Message -
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 28, 2004 10:13
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk
ï
Do you understand why I included this as an
illustration? Surely you've encountered a WQ this high previously!?
- Original Message -
From:
Jeff
Powers
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: November 28, 2004 10:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
> Please see
http://.fixedearth.com/ A young man
came into the store one week> ago espousing this position. He further
spoke to the THEORY of evolution> and, the THEORIES of general
How bizarre! Wouldn't the fact that we have sent men to the moon and back
kinda confirm that the earth was moving Izzy
-Original Message-
Please see http://.fixedearth.com/ A young man came into the store one week
ago espousing this position. He further spoke to the THEORY of evolutio
I went to the http://www.fixedearth.com/ website. I, of course have not been
able to read everything there. Very interesting. I'm sure it could create some
great debate. I find it interest to discover that the author calls me to be a
"Christian Zionist." In fact, there's a possibility that he co
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
e for so doing know exactly what I mean.
IMO some on TT are doing the former, some the latter.Though good
conversations are to be had with either, one leads only to an impasse.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Se
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 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
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
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
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.
In a message dated 11/25/2004 9:27:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
e.g., the Roman soldiers seald JCs tomb with Caesar's seal then stood guard in perpetuity to prohibit even tresspassg near his grave...howevr, when angels overpowerd the guards--blew 'em away--and rolled awa
In a message dated 11/25/2004 7:07:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is only possible if we have faith that we can walk in His righteousness every day. We cannot do this if we assume we are going to be "sinners every day".
Actually, the two concepts are not related.
This is awesome, G. And you are right. I wonder
what kind of rebuke you have fostered?
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:20
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
disobedience
disobedience(?)--have you ever thought about it
:)
e.g., the Roman
soldiers seald JCs tomb with Caesar's seal then stood guard in perpetuity to
prohibit even tresspassg near his grave...howevr, when angels overpowerd the
guards--blew 'em away--and rolled away the tombstone, people could se
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
Scripture makes that clear. And here's where the wonder dichotomy
arises.
Obedience also pr
ï
then tithg
dill is (continues as) a cultural pref, has nothin' to do w/
Godliness; obedience (to Christ) is rootd in (e.g.) meekness, or a certain
spirit drivn character, not in particulrizd compliance/s per se,
as he himself teaches
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:47:59 -0500 "Slade Henson"
<[EM
ï
Yeah...?
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, 25 November, 2004
12.52To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
Jesus
(is) focused on the truth
On Thu, 25 Nov
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
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
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.
ï
Jesus
(is) focused on the truth
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:47:59 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
The
principle here, if your teachers would have had better understanding to
then teach you..
Abe
himself was not blind to the point/s, below
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:34:13 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
In a message
dated 11/25/2004 7:31:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:God. can make exceptions to His rules any time He
wants to..
[John:]
I do n
f
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, 25 November, 2004
12.18To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
'you should do'
is a suggestion phrase requiring obedience to nothing--and, the suggestion is
to 'some Pharisees' whose religious tra
In a message dated 11/25/2004 7:31:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mornin' David. Here is how I see it.
1.There is no question that God rewards faith. Sometimes He even does
it here and now as well as in the sweet bye and bye. In the old
testament, many of the promises
ï
'you should do' is
a suggestion phrase requiring obedience to nothing--and, the suggestion is to
'some Pharisees' whose religious tradition died 'without neglecting the
weightier things of the Torah' which requires obedience to nothing--JC is
focused on the truth like an crocadile on the c
MAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 5:49
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral
covenant
> Good morning, and happy thanksgiving everyone. I trust we are
all thankful > to the great and gracious Lord God of heaven for the life
and abundance of &
Scripture makes that clear. And here's where the wonder dichotomy arises.
Obedience also provides benefits.
-- slade
-Original Message-
From: Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, 25 November, 2004 10.32
Is it not Christ's obedience that benefits Abraham's descendants?
--
"Let your speech
TERRY SAID: God is God. He can make exceptions to His rules any time He wants
to, and none of us are qualified to question that.
SLADE SAYS: If I understand you correctly, I think Scripture would support your
postulate. While berating some of the Pharisees about tithing mint and dill,
Yeshua sa
Is it not Christ's obedience that benefits Abraham's descendants?
- Original Message -
From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 24, 2004 19:14
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
> DAVE -- Quite fra
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
David Miller wrote:
Good morning, and happy thanksgiving everyone. I trust we are all
thankful to the great and gracious Lord God of heaven for the life and
abundance of good things that he gives unto the people of his covenant.
Concerning the Abraham / Abimelech incident of Gen. 20:
Although v
All 'right standing with God' issues from CHRIST'S FAITHFULNESS.
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: November 25, 2004 07:49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
> Good morning, a
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
Good morning, and happy thanksgiving everyone. I trust we are all thankful
to the great and gracious Lord God of heaven for the life and abundance of
good things that he gives unto the people of his covenant.
Concerning the Abraham / Abimelech incident of Gen. 20:
Although virtually every comme
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
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
ultery... after all the text makes it clear that
even at her age, she was a remarkable beautiful woman... not a great cook.
-- slade
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Wednesday, 24 November, 2004 08.54
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
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
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
