: 613948074
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dmc63$djl$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956322941 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:15:41 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:15:41 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Have you ever heard of Passover? Have you ever heard of the Passover lamb
that is to be sacrificed?
Have you ever heard the corelation between the Passover lamb and the
Passover Lamb of God?
Had you heard that Jesus was the perfect lamb of God who/that was
sacrificed for the sin of all mankind?
Ask any Jew "What day is Passover?" You'll hear, "It's always on a
Friday."
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheong wrote:
> Please log into http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/9519/friday.html
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Is the ICoC in the Desert?
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <390023ED.B31F9208@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613898969
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <8de76u$l0k$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956310436 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:47:16 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:47:16 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
My problem with the ICoC--and with works-oriented churches in general ( I
am not ICC, but I attended Pepperdine U.)--is that they ignore, or tend
to
ignore, God's Grace, without which we'd all be burning in hellfire.
1. the thief on the cross didn't have any op****tunity to "work out his
faith".
God saved him anyway. And I have heard ICC believers explain that God
gave the thief special grace. That doesn't allow us to sincerely come to
faith on death's row, as did Ted Bundy.
2. Paul told us that he had been the perfect Jew until he'd encountered
the
Perfect Christ. At that point, Paul then began to call himself the chief
of
sinners. If the greatest evangelist of the 1st Century was the chief of
sinners, where does that put us?
3. Jesus said He came, not to enslave us, but to set us free.
I believe that the ICC follows the Calvinist POV, which is "anything that
is not specifically stated as ok in scripture isn't"
Dr. Martin Luther, on the other hand, said "anything that is not
specifically stated as *not* ok in scripture is."
I believe the God of the Bible, and JEsus Christ, His incarnate Son, have
given us freedom, not slavery to a thousand laws.
For example, one could go to the market and pray over which brand of
toothpaste God wants us to buy. That is silly. God cares that we brush
our
teeth. He isn't concerned with which brand of toothpaste gets the job
done.
Another example that is a little more to the point. When I was preparing
for seminary, I had two choices of schools to attend. I prayed over that
decision for months; no answer came. I finally went to my pastor, who had
agreed to sponsor me. I told him I wasn't getting an answer on which
seminary to attend. He said that was an excellent example of the point
that
"God doesnt' care which school you attend. God is telling you that both
seminaries are good. God DOES give us choices, frequently!"
I'll leave you with a caution. The ICC is one of those churches that is
full of people who will happily make all kinds of choices for you if
you'll
let them. Don't let them. I've heard people say, "I prayed for months
about
whether I should go to church or not. I got no answer." Well, that means
that you don't pray over issues about which scripture is already crystal
clear. The Bible clearly says that we should find a church that
preaches/teaches as we believe is appropriate. We don't need to pray
about
that. We just need to be obedient.
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I know that
> others have also discovered a lot more of the fullness of God’s grace
> after leaving the ICoC - I have read about that in this news group and
> also talked to people who have left.
>
> Could it be that due to the ICoC’s tendency to lean towards the
> works/human effort/striving in accompli****ng God’s commands and
> purposes, that they are stuck wandering in the desert? Or maybe for
> other reasons? Or maybe, I’m missing the boat with the analogy? I’m
> curious to get some feedback from both those in the ICoC and from
> believers who have left the ICoC.
>
> Thanks,
> dave. . .
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005A78.F803788A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613951540
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<20000411185516.22777.00000098@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5d7be.26983186@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2ASI4.4184$fV.353431@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf91hfdc4nk164@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Cw3J4.999
$PV.56272@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbkqkl7aln29
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <kslJ4.2183$PV.159637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc2bcfaln14@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfri6uabeoc90@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956324402 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:40:02 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:40:02 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
This minutae is getting so absurd! How can Jesus be the Son of God and
not be
God the Son?
The two terms, if you understand them, are interchangeable. That means He
is
both. The Bible talks about the Son of God all the way through the Bible.
Every
time God takes visible form, as a man, whether Old Testament or New
Testament,
that "man" is the Son of God. John 1 and Colossians 1 and 2 tells us that
He
(Christ/the Son) is the image of the invisible God. John 1 says The Word
was
with God, and the Word was God, and He was in the beginning with God...
And the
Word became flesh. That can only mean that God took human form. His
followers
called Him many things. Rabbi, Lord, and the famous declaration of Peter:
You
are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, or Son of God. When Jesus
referred to
the same title with the Jews, referring to "my father', the text says
"the Jews
became very angry with Him, and even accused Him of blasphemy, because
He,
"being a man" had called God His Father, making Himself EQUAL TO GOD."
How could
He be *equal to God" without being God. Again, see Colossians 1 and 2.
Christ
Jesus was the total of Deity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in flesh. Any
other
interpretation, ("being the Son of God doen't make Him God the Son") is
quibbling.
john
Joy wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I have to ask here, why must we split hairs like this?
> > If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnipresent, He can be
anywhere,
> and
> > everywhere at the same time. He can sit on His throne (Father/son)
and He
> can
> > indwell us who believe (the Holy Spirit). When we get bogged down in
> definitions
> > that can't possibly fit Him because He is, by nature, Infinite, and
we, by
> > nature, are finite, how can we hope to ever put Him in a box or under
a
> > microscope. This attempt to "understand" the nature of the tri-une
God is
> doomed
> > before we even begin. I certainly would not believe in a God I could
fully
> > understand. And I've understood since my earliest childhood that God
has
> NOT
> > told us all there is to know about Himself. One of those things we
have
> > imperfect knowledge of is His nature (whether we are Oneness or
> Trinitarian)
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am going out on a limb here, but I would say that Jesus is
telling
> those
> > > standing around Him that the spirit inside of Him is God.
> >
> > So, are you here saying that He was not God before He was baptized
and the
> > Spirit descended upon Him?
>
> Where did the baptism part come in at? I didn't say anything about
baptism,
> or anything else.
>
> > This is dangerous ground. When the Archangel Gabriel came to Mary and
told
> her
> > she would give birth to God the Son, He didn't tell her that her baby
> would
> > BECOME God the Son. He told her she would give birth to the Son of
God.
> "the
> > holy one to be born will be called The Son of God." Luke 1:35
> > He was born God.
> >
> The Son of God doesn't make Him God the Son.
> You are a son of man, but not Man the Son.
>
> > > What makes Him
> > > the same God is that while I can say I have the spirit of God
inside of
> me,
> > > He doesn't have my spirit inside of Him, nor do I possess the
totality
> of
> > > God inside of me, as Jesus did.
> > > The totality of Jesus was in the Father, as well as the totality of
the
> > > Father was in Jesus. How can two "persons" be inside each other,
if
> they
> > > are different?
> >
> > Again, you are trying to reason the nature of God. We don't find one
> single
> > verse in the entire Bible that allows or invites us to reason God's
> nature. Be
> > VERY careful with that.
>
> Why be careful with that? Is it a big secret? Is it a sin to wonder
about
> God? You are trying to reason with His nature by saying He coundn't
> possibly be the Father, Son, and HG WITHOUT being three "persons". I
am
> saying He can do all things WITHOUT being three "poersons".
>
Do as you wish. You are going to anyway. You have been warned. I said we
are not
supposed to reason or debate the nature of God. If I had my dozen
different
versions of the Bible, as I used to, I believe I could have given you
multiple
references to sup****t that POV. I can't, because I don't have all those
Bibles
anymore. And we are of very different faiths, so I am sure you will do as
you
please. I can't follow half the unscriptural tangents you charismatics go
on
anyway. Some of you actually even believe in apostolic succession, which
is a
RCC pagan teaching. And some of you actually even believe in modern-day
speaking
in tongues, which the Bible also clearly states ended in the 1st Century,
along
with prophesy (the writing of the Bible).
And I will not go into all that again.
john
>
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005E9D.2C9AD6B5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613960285
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sf1205b6cqv150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F0D5AE.34BF7A5F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Q%8I4.6414$YB4.446645@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <YDlI4.1138$xe6.349096@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38f473ca.14810743@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <9RDI4.1271$xe6.387541
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f43f58.24751021@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<FPII4.247$PV.7577@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fe5d82.32473622
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <qpJI4.302$PV.9763@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3902657d.34517042@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Vq%I4.133432
$Pa1.3521872@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6i3J4.991$PV.58375@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbnpbtmaln79@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <fMlJ4.2225
$PV.161199@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc4sp7galn117
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6prJ4.165$wj.44574@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2_BK4.58747$9g4.1230551
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325463 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:57:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:57:43 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Raymond, you are both illiterate, un-illuminated, and boring. We can and
do *both* take
teachings from the New Testament to reveal truths in the Old, and vice
versa.
The point I was making was this: when we see a manifestation of God in
flesh in the Old
Testament, and we wonder who He is/was, we only need to look to the New
Testament for the
answer. Whether it's in the Old Testament or it's in the New, it's all
part of the same
Holy Word of God. The New Testament says in multiple places, in John
chapter 1, and in
Colossians 1 and 2, that Christ Jesus is/was the image of the invisible
God. When the
invisible God takes human form, as He did when the Father took flesh and
became the Son,
Jesus, any time God takes human form, that is the Son of God.
So anywhere we see God in human form, anywhere in the Bible, that is the
pre-incarnate
Christ/Son of God, meaning that He was the Son in flesh in the Old
Testament before he
was Jesus in the New Testament.
It couldn't be any simpler. We use the New Testament to explain the Old.
And if you don't
understand that, how can you claim to be indwelt by His Spirit, Who is
supposed to teach
you all things?
Raymond wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Another good point, Mike. When I was in seminary, I made the same
> > discovery you did, but you didn't quite divulge the entire point,
which
> > I will do now.
> > Since Colossians says that He/Jesus is the image of the invisible
God,
> > then who did Abraham see when God took form? The answer is, Abraham
saw
> > the pre-incarnate Christ (the image of the invisible) in His glory.
>
> They taught you in seminary, if you have not a verse, you make one up?
You have
> nothing to show that it was a "pre-incarnate Christ" or anything except
what the
> Bible says it was. Your Church teaching doesn't make it true or
bible. That
> answer was one given by a man, that did not have any proof of his
statement. Which
> you took, hook line and sinker, still doesn't make it so. When I was
in Seminary we
> were not taught this as a pre-incarnate Christ.
So what makes your seminary teaching superior to mine? Only in your
opinion, which I
don't share. One can go to seminary, and be taught by ignoramuses, and
one doesn't become
educated. One becomes an ignoramus taught by ignoramuses. Just like when
I was in
graduate school, and my psychology professors tried to tell me that I was
wasting my time
in graduate school because I continued to hold onto my silly beliefs in
God. That opinion
didn't make these professors smart. They had all that education, and yet
they were still
ignorant of God.
> Now as I read some here that call
> themselves followers of the Trinity doctrine there was no need to "pre-
incarnate"
> Christ as He is the second person in the God group and so just popped
in as he is the
> "eternal Son of God" by one writer in this NG. No need for "pre-
incarnate" stuff,
> the 2nd person of the Godhead would not have a problem of just dropping
in.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... All I meant (and all "pre-incarnate* means)
by
"pre-incarnate" was is that before the New Testament time when the Word
became flesh
(incarnate), He became flesh in the Old Testament. This is commonly known
as
"pre-incarnate". What you are suggesting is that we are not free to make
up terms to
define concepts in the Bible, such as "pre-incarnate", "trinity", etc.
Where does the
Bible say that we can't make up terms as a shorthand so to speak??
> The
> more I read in this NG from them that call themselves Trinitarians, is
just getting
> more confusing, if they want to make God something or something, they
just say it,
> and think that is all that is needed. Not very Biblical is it? Then
I suppose
> since you do the same, I am asking the wrong person?
I see your point, which is no point. It's your human foolishness. It's
your lack of
comprehension.
>
>
> > I'm now betting I'm gonna get 100 questions "What do you mean by the
> > "pre-incarnate" Christ?"
> >
>
> Then that would be par for some in this NG.
>
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Mike S wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can rule out the Father as the one Abraham talked to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And just how do you come to that conclusion?
> > > > >
> > > > > The bible says no one has seen the Father except the Son.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > I have never in my life seen more double speak than I have today
> > > by the Oneness Pentecostals on this group.
> > > It's actually giving me a headache.
> > >
> >
> > The lack of Bible scholar****p doesn't run in Oneness Pentecostalism
and
> > Charismatic theology; it gallops!
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > As a former fetus, I am opposed to abortion.
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005EE0.86045B57@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613960800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3906689f.35318777@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <lpKI4.1657
$fV.129341@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f48154.4858446@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <JqSI4.4143$fV.345727@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5002b.37333942@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<PaUI4.408$WF.26277@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf925ce4nk172
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <0D3J4.1007$PV.60132@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38F9DA0D.F9E83BC5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dcn56$326$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39003046.64501391@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325528 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:58:48 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:58:48 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Mark Bassett wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:42:25 -0400, "bm" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >The sad thing is that they are not kidding. They believe that the
power of
> >salvation comes through a preacher words rather than Christ. Christ's
> >command in Matthew 28:19 doesn't matter to them or some try to twist
the
> >words.
>
> Acts 2:38 *IS* the WORD OF GOD, FULFILLING in the CHURCH, the
commission of
> JESUS CHRIST.
>
> When you begin to explain away the scripture as "a preachers words",
you
> have already explained your problem.
>
> -mwb
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Bible origins
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <390025F0.2C001F51@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613902534
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38F9B7BB.1972AF96@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956310951 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:55:51 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:55:51 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
I continue to be amazed at the garbage spewed by those who have no
respect for God's word. I suggest that "Mr. Johnson" submit this
"thesis" to an orthodox Jew and then run! The Jews will tell you in a
heatrbeat that the information passed by Mr. Johnson as "history" is
pure RCC rubbish. I personally don't believe that Mr. Johnson would
refer to novelist H.G. Wells as anything resembling a historian of the
Bible or of Bible history.
Let me clue you, Bob: The "first Bible" came to us, not from the RCC
Council of Nicea, but from the Eastern Church. The first Bible is called
the Pe****a text, and it was compiled in the first century. Take note,
by the way, that the first century is the same century in which the
Apostles wrote the New Testament!
In Christ,
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Robert L. Johnson" wrote:
> We've recently updated our Bible origins page at
> http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm
>
> Hope you find it interesting and thought provoking!
>
> Thanks, Bob
> http://www.deism.com
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005EE0.86045B57@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613960800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3906689f.35318777@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <lpKI4.1657
$fV.129341@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f48154.4858446@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <JqSI4.4143$fV.345727@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5002b.37333942@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<PaUI4.408$WF.26277@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf925ce4nk172
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <0D3J4.1007$PV.60132@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38F9DA0D.F9E83BC5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dcn56$326$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39003046.64501391@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325528 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:58:48 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:58:48 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Mark Bassett wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:42:25 -0400, "bm" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >The sad thing is that they are not kidding. They believe that the
power of
> >salvation comes through a preacher words rather than Christ. Christ's
> >command in Matthew 28:19 doesn't matter to them or some try to twist
the
> >words.
>
> Acts 2:38 *IS* the WORD OF GOD, FULFILLING in the CHURCH, the
commission of
> JESUS CHRIST.
>
> When you begin to explain away the scripture as "a preachers words",
you
> have already explained your problem.
>
> -mwb
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: The Original Church?
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39002037.D642F9E6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613895379
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8dgbo7$1a2$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956309485 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:31:25 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:31:25 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Good question!
I would not say that there is one single church that is the modern day
equivalent of the churches that Paul founded. And I notice that you asked
a
question that technically has no answer. Technically, there was not
"first
church" or "original" church. The "epistles", the letters Paul wrote,
such
as Galatians, Ephesians, etc., were written to the "original 7 churches".
And if you read those letters/"books" carefully, you will notice that
Paul
observed that each of the seven had its good ponits and its bad points.
So
there were minor/and sometimes major difficulties and errors within each
of
the original seven churches. Yet, contrary to the Mormon and Jehovah's
Witness view that "none of the 7 were true churches, because the letters
Paul wrote told them that they had all fallen short", Paul addresses each
church as "my brothers and sisters in Christ', which tells us that even
with all the difficulties and shortcomings of the seven original
churches,
they were all *still* under God's grace.
For a look into what constitutes a "New Testament" church on the order of
the ones Paul founded, you might want to pick up a copy of Dr. William
Steuart McBirnie's classic text The Search for The Early Church.
Dr. McBirnie is recognized as one of the foremost (some say THE foremost)
scholars on the Early Church.
He tells us very basically what characteristics are required of a New
Testament, without all the dogma.
Hope you find some answers.
By the way, some would like to tell you that the Church of Christ was the
first; others would say that the first church was the RCC. But the New
Testament mentions the first church by name; it's called The Way.
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hey guys, I was recently lurking in this ng and read a post about "the
> original church". I sent away for that book, and believe me, it's very
> eye-opening. Now, what I want to know is:
>
> Is there a modern-day church that meets these requirements? I'd really
> like to know. Where can that church be found?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Isaiah 7:14
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3900FAEE.2BA8C610@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 614158218
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3905fba3.44245616@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <ndqJ4.1012
$qF4.65637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <4ytJ4.25426$2D6.746014
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <N%uJ4.1177$qF4.102454@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<7e3K4.30108$2D6.925289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <EV9K4.4152$qF4.360877
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38FAC8F8.370AD265@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <K5JK4.5537
$qF4.517970@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dg3sc$oqo$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<67OK4.35635$2D6.1160461@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fbc444_5
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <027ofsgmkoeeh9fnar69u6d7b9kql7duqs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<5R3L4.641$i84.8136@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fce212_2
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8div5f$uac$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <wo8L4.843$i84.9804
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dj92n$9a5$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <G%bL4.96216
$1C2.2909570@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfrl3nmteoc143@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<8dldg5$lnr$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfst0cbsin2112@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8dq21c
$llm$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956365484 63.225.165.131 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
20:04:44 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:04:44 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.messan
ic
Why is this garbage being spewed in a Bible study group?
Jesus is God in flesh, and thus has nothing to do with Lucifer, a created
being (fallen angel).
Not only did Jesus claim deity, "If you have seen me, you have seen the
Father!" John 14:9
Rev Peter wrote:
> In article <sfst0cbsin2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Brad" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> RevP:
>
> > >
> > > Tell me Brad, do you think a god would want a vicious decadent like
> > > Peter around in his legs for an eternity? Hopefully Peter gets his
> wish,
> > > and is tortured forever to entertain his Jesus Lucifer Christ.
>
> Brad
> >
> > ***I suspect that Peter, as most people, would wor****p just about
> anything
> > that he believes will take care of him in eternity. For people who
> can't
> > wait to get to heaven Xians seem to know very few details about what
> exactly
> > will go on there.
Yes, much of Heaven is a mystery. Yet we know that the God who
loves/loved
us enough to take human form and die for us would not hurt us. And He has
told us that we will be rewarded in Heaven. We will also be re-united
with
loved ones who have perished before us.
And after all, going to Heaven sure beats the alternative, doesn't it?
Heaven also beats "nothingness".
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Paul mentions a third heaven in 2 Cor 12:2. Where is
> that?
> > A trip to heaven may involve being a sheep in more ways than Peter
> cares to
> > imagine.
> > BTW Jesus also fits some of the imagery in Ezek 28:7-10 in striking
> detail.
> > Same with Ezek 32:4-8.
> > Jesus was pierced, spread and hung upon a hill, crucified(birds would
> pick
> > the remains of most crucified victims), his blood flowed out onto the
> > ground, he was buried in the pit,
No, the Bible says very clearly that He was buried in a borrowed tomb.
Think
about it: there would be no large stone in front of a pit. You may not
like
what the Bible says, but that gives you no justification for re-writing
it.
> the sky became dark at his death and
> the
> > earth trembled, he wanted to be like God, and died the violent death
> of the
> > uncir***cised.
Actually, the Bible, in John 1 and in Colossians 1 and 2 says that He
is/was
God in flesh.
You sure spout a lot for someone who hasn't read the Bible.
I am in a hurry at the moment; I will take a look at some of these
scriptures later, and respond to any I feel appropriate. I frankly have
seen
a whole lot of scripture I heard was "prophetic" of Chrsit, or not
prophetic. And the last scriptures I looked up were in regard to His
first
advent, not His second. The Bible clearly teaches two separate advents of
Christ. The first was obviouly as Suffering Savior. The second coming
will
be as conquering Lord and King.
john
john weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yet, I don't hear Xians claiming that Ezek 28 and 32
> were
> > foreshadowings of Jesus as they do with any other verse that they
> claim
> > foretells of Jesus. The similarity of Jesus in Ezek 28:7-10, and Ezek
> 32:4-8
> > is too striking to ignore. Unless of course it doesn't fit the Xian
> agenda.
> > Regards, Brad***
>
> RevP:
>
> Well said Brad. Christians are very selective and dishonest in what
they
> borrow from the Jewish Scriptures where Jesus is concerned. They take
> non prophecies, and verses taken completely out of context in an effort
> to justify Jesus [ie, taking Hosea 11:1 out of its context which
> includes verse 2]. They even invented prophecies which have no basis at
> all in the Ta****h, and then boast that Jesus fulfilled it. For example:
>
> Matt. 2: 23, "23 and came to reside in a city called Nazareth, that
what
> was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called
> a Nazarene.'"
>
> Of course, the fiction writer who wrote Matthew, failed to identify
> these prophets. The reason? There are no prophets ever said any such
> thing. The Messiah is a ruling king, he is not some hillbilly.
>
> It is this type of nonsense which goes on and on in the New fangled
> Testament. The only prophecy which fits Jesus, is Isaiah 14: 12-19. It
> fits him so well, that Jesus could very well be the fulfillment of it.
>
> [THE XIAN APOLOGETIC THAT SATAN WANTS TO SIT ABOVE GOD IS NONSENSE, the
> text shows that Lucifer only wants to be above the stars of God. When
> will xians learn to read what is written, instead of misreading
> everything their darkened minds look at!]
>
> Also, considering that in Rev 22:16, Jesus admits to being the "morning
> star" [in Latin: Lucifer], and Rev 1:5, Jesus is identified as the "the
> ruler of the kings of the EARTH" [in effect, the RULER OF THE WORLD].
>
> The xians can keep Lord Lucifer Christ and his cannibalistic death
cult.
>
> peace brother
>
> Rev Peter
> --
> http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
> "In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
> In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
> -- Ladyhank.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: admission in the crucifixion
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3900F654.D0330B4D@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 614154159
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <sg05njuhl6e114@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956364305 63.225.165.131 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
19:45:05 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:45:05 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.bible.prophecy,alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.re
ligion.clergy
Well, Mike, I had seen several warnings that you were/are a Satanist
masquerading as a Christian. I didn't believe it until this post. You are
twisting and misquoting and mis-interpreting scriptures herein. I don't
have
time to itemize this right now. I will try to get to it later. But you
almost
had me fooled until this post.
I'll ask you what I asked the guy who spends all his time looking for the
"mistakes" in scripture: Have you discovered the Bible's Plan of
Salvation yet?
Shame on you for allowing Satan to fill your heart. Repent or perish!
In Christ,
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Night wrote:
> Here's one of the biggest clues: (John 12:27+).
> Jesus’ talking about his crucifixion;
> "now shall the prince of this world (who they themselves admit is SATAN
> (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); be cast down,"
>
> The one being cast down here was him. (even in their own accounts he
was
> cast down to hell in the Apostles creed also Acts 2:27)
> Satan was a fallen archangel(cHIEF pRINCE). He was the Anointed
> (CHRIST)Cherub (Ezekiel 28:8-18).
> So Jesus is admitting being the "fallen"(cast down) prince(1st prince
of
> this world) in John 12:27+
> Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4).
> Lucifer ="light-bearer" and “Morning Star” (Isaiah 14:12-19)
> Sometimes he is disguised as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).
> Jesus admits being the bright morning star Rev 22:16 and
> baring light and being the light (Day/morning/sun/baal/satan) of this
world
> (John 8:12, 9:5, ****trayed by illuminated/luciferous rays of light).
> He was-
> Not G-d http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9623/notgod.html
> Not a prophet: http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/falseprophet.html
> Not legitimately in the bible
> http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/interpretation.html
> Not fulfilled of the Messiah roles and prerequisites:
> http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/qualify.html
> not an atonement: http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/sacrifice.html
> which means he was: http://members.tripod.com/~MikeNight/match.html
> http://www.veoweb.com/autos/malakh/
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39005E9D.2C9AD6B5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613960285
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sf1205b6cqv150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F0D5AE.34BF7A5F@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Q%8I4.6414$YB4.446645@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <YDlI4.1138$xe6.349096@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38f473ca.14810743@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <9RDI4.1271$xe6.387541
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f43f58.24751021@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<FPII4.247$PV.7577@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38fe5d82.32473622
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <qpJI4.302$PV.9763@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3902657d.34517042@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Vq%I4.133432
$Pa1.3521872@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6i3J4.991$PV.58375@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbnpbtmaln79@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <fMlJ4.2225
$PV.161199@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc4sp7galn117
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6prJ4.165$wj.44574@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2_BK4.58747$9g4.1230551
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956325463 207.224.250.242 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
08:57:43 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:57:43 CDT
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.christnet.the
ology,alt.bible.prophecy
Raymond, you are both illiterate, un-illuminated, and boring. We can and
do *both* take
teachings from the New Testament to reveal truths in the Old, and vice
versa.
The point I was making was this: when we see a manifestation of God in
flesh in the Old
Testament, and we wonder who He is/was, we only need to look to the New
Testament for the
answer. Whether it's in the Old Testament or it's in the New, it's all
part of the same
Holy Word of God. The New Testament says in multiple places, in John
chapter 1, and in
Colossians 1 and 2, that Christ Jesus is/was the image of the invisible
God. When the
invisible God takes human form, as He did when the Father took flesh and
became the Son,
Jesus, any time God takes human form, that is the Son of God.
So anywhere we see God in human form, anywhere in the Bible, that is the
pre-incarnate
Christ/Son of God, meaning that He was the Son in flesh in the Old
Testament before he
was Jesus in the New Testament.
It couldn't be any simpler. We use the New Testament to explain the Old.
And if you don't
understand that, how can you claim to be indwelt by His Spirit, Who is
supposed to teach
you all things?
Raymond wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9CB2E.EB5E0463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Another good point, Mike. When I was in seminary, I made the same
> > discovery you did, but you didn't quite divulge the entire point,
which
> > I will do now.
> > Since Colossians says that He/Jesus is the image of the invisible
God,
> > then who did Abraham see when God took form? The answer is, Abraham
saw
> > the pre-incarnate Christ (the image of the invisible) in His glory.
>
> They taught you in seminary, if you have not a verse, you make one up?
You have
> nothing to show that it was a "pre-incarnate Christ" or anything except
what the
> Bible says it was. Your Church teaching doesn't make it true or
bible. That
> answer was one given by a man, that did not have any proof of his
statement. Which
> you took, hook line and sinker, still doesn't make it so. When I was
in Seminary we
> were not taught this as a pre-incarnate Christ.
So what makes your seminary teaching superior to mine? Only in your
opinion, which I
don't share. One can go to seminary, and be taught by ignoramuses, and
one doesn't become
educated. One becomes an ignoramus taught by ignoramuses. Just like when
I was in
graduate school, and my psychology professors tried to tell me that I was
wasting my time
in graduate school because I continued to hold onto my silly beliefs in
God. That opinion
didn't make these professors smart. They had all that education, and yet
they were still
ignorant of God.
> Now as I read some here that call
> themselves followers of the Trinity doctrine there was no need to "pre-
incarnate"
> Christ as He is the second person in the God group and so just popped
in as he is the
> "eternal Son of God" by one writer in this NG. No need for "pre-
incarnate" stuff,
> the 2nd person of the Godhead would not have a problem of just dropping
in.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... All I meant (and all "pre-incarnate* means)
by
"pre-incarnate" was is that before the New Testament time when the Word
became flesh
(incarnate), He became flesh in the Old Testament. This is commonly known
as
"pre-incarnate". What you are suggesting is that we are not free to make
up terms to
define concepts in the Bible, such as "pre-incarnate", "trinity", etc.
Where does the
Bible say that we can't make up terms as a shorthand so to speak??
> The
> more I read in this NG from them that call themselves Trinitarians, is
just getting
> more confusing, if they want to make God something or something, they
just say it,
> and think that is all that is needed. Not very Biblical is it? Then
I suppose
> since you do the same, I am asking the wrong person?
I see your point, which is no point. It's your human foolishness. It's
your lack of
comprehension.
>
>
> > I'm now betting I'm gonna get 100 questions "What do you mean by the
> > "pre-incarnate" Christ?"
> >
>
> Then that would be par for some in this NG.
>
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Mike S wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can rule out the Father as the one Abraham talked to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And just how do you come to that conclusion?
> > > > >
> > > > > The bible says no one has seen the Father except the Son.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > I have never in my life seen more double speak than I have today
> > > by the Oneness Pentecostals on this group.
> > > It's actually giving me a headache.
> > >
> >
> > The lack of Bible scholar****p doesn't run in Oneness Pentecostalism
and
> > Charismatic theology; it gallops!
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > As a former fetus, I am opposed to abortion.
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Columbine/America is sick
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <39001CF2.5E687EF0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 613892805
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38FF1C8E.1014DD8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 956308648 209.180.199.201 (Fri, 21 Apr 2000
04:17:28 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:17:28 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
Although this post doesn't directly address issues related to the title
of this News Group, it *does* address issues that should concern
everyone--male or female--who calls themself a Christian, whether Roman
Catholic, Adventist, Sabbatarian, Baptist, Brethren, Boston Church, or
Christian Teen/Youth.
I am a 52 year old military veteran, disabled, on Social Security. This
country's government has abused me ever since I became officially
disabled.
10 years ago, my son't mother accused me of "verbal assault' which
Wa****ngton state defines as "any activity which the female partner
wishes to say frightened her." In my case, as has happened to millions
of others in America, there was no assault. There was only a desire on
the part of my son's mother to get "uncontested custody".
After I was "convicted" without a trial, the courts and the police
basically decided that if I would "abuse my partner verbally" I could be
considered capable of anything.
Consequently, 7 years ago, the ex- accused me of molesting my son. Since
I had already been "convicted" of "verbally assaulting" my son's mom,
the courts assumed that if I would assault my son't mother, I'd molest
my son. No trial, no charges filed, I was presumed guilty and sentenced
to 2 hours a week of supervised visitation in an agency setting. So for
the past 7 years, my basic contact with my son has taken place in one of
several rooms of a very old, converted elementary school office. This
confinement has severely restricted the activities that my sn (now 12)
and I can enjoy. For perspective, remember the last time you took your
son/daughter shopping for a pair of shoes? I haven't enjoyed that basic
activity with my son for 5 years. Remember the last time you took your
kid out for an ice cream cone. I haven't been able to do that with my
son for 5 years. Remember the last time you took your kid to a movie? I
haven't been able to do that with my son for 5 years. I'd bring a TV and
VCR and a movie to our visits when I had a TV and a VCR and a car with
which to trans****t them. I was homeless for 6 months of 1999 and a month
of 1998, during which time, the man who let me move in with him stole my
TV and VCR. I ended up at the Seattle Union Rescue Mission for 6 months,
during which time I lost my car. So I can't even enjoy a movie with my
son anymore, not to mention that the two hour visits we had to begin
with were also too expensive for me to pay for ($25 an hour), so
I--almost immediately after being :"awarded" the two hour visit--was
reduced to 1 hour a week. The court had "awarded" me 2 15 minute
monitored phone calls per week, monitor to be chosen by the mother.
Well, she only chose one monitor, and he was only available once a week.
So my total court ordered contact was immediatly reduced by 50%.
The judge also rigged a "psychological evaluation with a ***ual deviancy
component" which came out inconclusive, so the psychologist lied in
court that I was a molester, and the judge ordered me into therapy. I
was not told at the time that, to get into therapy, I'd have to admit to
molesting my son, and then I'd have to go to prison for several years,
then to therapy; then I'd have to register as a ***ual offender. Well, I
am not a ***ual offender. So I am now in the limbo of having to wait
until I win a 10 million dollar lottery before I can afford to go back
to court and try to get custody back. In the meantime, I am too sick to
work, and so my personal living situation gets worse and worse.
I have contacted every politician I can think of, from President Clinton
to all my federal and state representatives. They have all said,
essentially, "Well, that's too bad! Yes, that's unconstitutional! But
the laws are basically good laws, so just because a few million of you
have lost everything as a result of the laws, we aren't going to change
the laws. See, a few million people who the laws have destroyed don't
represent enough votes to gte me into office, or to put me out of
office. So we/I really don't care." That is what I've heard from the
politicians who have bothered to respond to my letters, faxes, emails,
and phone calls. The politicians don't care. So I contacted the media.
Either they didn't care, or they said, "So?"
The other thing I have heard from the media and the politicians is
"Well, that hasn't happened to me, and it never would, so I really don't
care that it's happened to several million others."
So, I am writing to these News Groups asking for each of you who has a
conscience, for each of you who knows someone to whom something similar
has happened, to write to your politicians, write to your news media.
Don't let us remain invisible/forgotten. The best way for evil to
triumph is for "good people" to do nothing.
And I'll tell you why. There is an old proverb. I'm sure you've all
heard it, but I am going to repeat it here as a reminder:
When they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything, because I am not
Jewish.
When they came for the blacks, I didn't say anything, because I am not
black.
When they came for the old folks, I didn't say anything, because my
grandparents were already dead.
When they came for the disabled, I didn't say anything, because I am not
disabled.
When they came for the poor, single fathers, I didn't say anything,
because I am not a poor, single father.
When they came for me, I went silently; there was no one left to defend
me.
thanks for your help
john weatherly
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mulder wrote:
> "It will take time and energy to be healed
> from this most tragic community wound.
> For the families of the slain there will be only
> grief and despair.
> For us as a community there can be healing...
> by helping those who suffer and are in pain."
>
> - Rabbi Steven E. Foster
>
> "When it seems that our sorrow is too great to be borne,
> let us think of the great family of the heavy-hearted into
> which our grief has given us entrance, and inevitably, we
> will feel about us, their arms and their understanding."
>
> - Helen Keller
>
> "...time for all Americans to ask what we can
> do - as individuals and as a nation - to turn more young
> people from the path of violence; how we can take
> responsibility, each and every one of us, for the future
> of our children."
>
> - President Clinton
>
> "Too soon, too soon comes Death so show
> We love more deeply than we know.
> And love in life should strive to see
> Sometimes what love in death would be."
>
> - Coventry Patmore
>
> "Love is the flower of life, and blossoms unexpectedly
> and without law, and must be plucked where it is found,
> and enjoyed for the brief hour of its duration."
>
> - D. H. Lawrence
>
> "God protects disciples in high school shooting that claimed
> the lives of 14 students and one teacher."
>
> - John Lusk, Evangelist, Denver International Church of Christ
>
> --
> ______________________
> Fox Mulder AKA Lewis Johnson
> DID 360.750.0314
> FAX 360.750.9150
> lewjohn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ICQ 1363586 <--For lurkers that need to talk--<<
> http://www.geocities.com/~lewjohnson/icc/
> ______________________
> My old church welcomes all denominations,
> but mainly they prefer twenties and fifties.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR TRINITARIANS
Date: 2000/04/17
Message-ID: <38FB4C72.3C4FAC53@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 612317374
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sIJI4.320$PV.10289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<20000411185516.22777.00000098@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <38f5d7be.26983186@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2ASI4.4184$fV.353431@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf91hfdc4nk164@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Cw3J4.999
$PV.56272@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfbkqkl7aln29
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <kslJ4.2183$PV.159637@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sfc2bcfaln14@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <7_BK4.58749$9g4.1230551
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 955993141 207.224.250.212 (Mon, 17 Apr 2000
12:39:01 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:39:01 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
Once, again, Raymond, you have chosen to be thick and to split hairs. I
did not say we
should not try to know God. I said we "can't ever fully know Him", at
least not in this
mortal lifetime.
And I speak/spoke of the tri-une God and of Trinitarian beliefs/teachings
because those
are my beliefs. I can't speak for anyone else, as you have said also that
YOU can't.
I was making the point that we will not ever agree on all points. That is
not something
we should even expect to do. But I don't think it is essential or even
appropriate to
debate the nature of God whom we can not ever fully comprehend. Then you
want to quibble
with my terms.
Raymond wrote:
> "John Weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:38F9D8A6.291E78E5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I have to ask here, why must we split hairs like this?
> This attempt to "understand" the nature of the tri-une God is doomed
Again, Tri-une or Trinity ONLY means that the Bible tells us there is a
person we know as
God who is called the Father; there is a person we know as God who is
called the Son of
God; and there is a person we know as God who is called the Holy Spirit
or Spirit. Count
'em yourself. That is 3 names: Father, Son, and HOly Spirit. Three names,
three different
functions. We are called "trinitariians" because we refer to the three as
the Holy
Trinity, the Trinity, or the Tri-unity. You believe in the Father, the
Son, and the Holy
Spirit, you just call them by other names. I am not going to get hung up
on the
name/names..
>
>
> So you are saying that you do not need to know God,
You should ask me, rather than saying "you are saying..." then you say
something I
*didn't* say. I NEVER said we should not try to know God. I never said we
"do not need to
know God." If that's what you got from what I wrote, you got nothing. I
said, as finite
beings, we can not ever know the Infinite God in this human lifetime.
> and if you did know him fully you
> would reject him?
I also said I would not believe in a god whom I fully understood. Because
the God I DO
believe in is too big to be put in a box or under a microscope and
understood fullly. The
Infinte Deity can't fit into the finite brain of man or woman.
> Jesus taught to Know him, the Apostles said to study and God said
> ask thou me, then in Matt 28:20 Jesus showed them the mystery of the
Godhead, and so
> on.
Nowhere will you ever see any verse in scripture that says
1. we can fully understand the nature of God
2. we should debate the nature of God.
> I like to know fully the God I am giving my life for, and my
eternality too.
Then you are commiting heresy. God has not told us we can know Him fully
in this
lifetime. Paul said, "Now I see (God) through a glass darkly. Then I will
see Him face to
face, and I will know Him as I am known." You are misquoting the test.
>
> Then many here on both sides would say to you , you may have the
problem with the
> nature of God, but they do not. Look at them write, it is so, because
they said so,
> tell them otherwise and you are in for "hell on earth"
I could care less whether anyone in the NG thinks I am headed for hell or
anywhere else.
Them, or you, saying I am going to hell doesn't make it so. That is a
decision for God,
not for you or anyone else here on earth.
> Fire and hot water, curses and
> foul terms and on and on, Some do not even stop with the person, they
go after your
> family, friends as if they know who they are. John if you really mean
any of this
> you wrote, do not waste time reading any of the replies come back in a
few weeks and
> just go on with your life.
I DO try to come in here and impart some knowledge and a different point
of view. Perhaps
YOU should be one who when you see my name, don't bother to read it. You
don't seem to
understand most of what I am saying most of the time, anyway. So why
waste your time on
my posts?
> Some here do not care what you have to say, they will
> deny it, they will fight it, and hair spiting is their full time job,
it would seem.
>
Yes, I suggest you move on. Don't waste any more of your time on my
posts. You see? The
nature of this news group is that people of a variety of opinions and
beliefes can come
in here and post. This news group is not restricted to people who agree
with you.
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Raymond.
>
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am going out on a limb here, but I would say that Jesus is
telling those
> > > standing around Him that the spirit inside of Him is God.
> >
> > So, are you here saying that He was not God before He was baptized
and the
> > Spirit descended upon Him?
> > This is dangerous ground. When the Archangel Gabriel came to Mary and
told her
> > she would give birth to God the Son, He didn't tell her that her baby
would
> > BECOME God the Son. He told her she would give birth to the Son of
God. "the
> > holy one to be born will be called The Son of God." Luke 1:35
> > He was born God.
> >
> > > What makes Him
> > > the same God is that while I can say I have the spirit of God
inside of me,
> > > He doesn't have my spirit inside of Him, nor do I possess the
totality of
> > > God inside of me, as Jesus did.
> > > The totality of Jesus was in the Father, as well as the totality of
the
> > > Father was in Jesus. How can two "persons" be inside each other,
if they
> > > are different?
> >
> > Again, you are trying to reason the nature of God. We don't find one
single
> > verse in the entire Bible that allows or invites us to reason God's
nature. Be
> > VERY careful with that.
> > john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Apostolic Stupidity?
Date: 2000/04/16
Message-ID: <38F9E9D1.7709F056@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 611885038
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8bk17g$28q$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sdt21gbklul127
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sef4moos824107@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <seh4g0kleop37
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8cao6i$iic$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sehsb3s2eop93
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <82pG4.60823$17.1333229@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sekcabmpeop47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <selevak1rfg69@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sen018g6rfg161@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8cg8dj$n9m$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sepl65farfg174@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8civ0m$mun$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38ef1b6e.13588757@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <serqc8jlrfg44
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sesanc8prfg60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8cm1c6$18d$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sev4jgmkcqv137@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8coc55$dnt$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sevfr9jlcqv141@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sevotl8lcqv15
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <skGI4.130221$Pa1.3451791@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 955902367 207.224.251.168 (Sun, 16 Apr 2000
11:26:07 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:26:07 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
> Since when does any Christian follow the example of the RCC pagans?
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What is the attack the UPCI for, check out the nuns in the Roman
Catholic Church how
> many nuns wear pants?
> Than the Pope doesn't even wear pants, at least no one would know with
all the robes
> and such.
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Apostolic Stupidity?
Date: 2000/04/16
Message-ID: <38F9EBC4.84745343@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 611887248
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8bk17g$28q$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sdt21gbklul127
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sef4moos824107@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <seh4g0kleop37
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8cao6i$iic$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sehsb3s2eop93
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <82pG4.60823$17.1333229@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sekcabmpeop47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <selevak1rfg69@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sen018g6rfg161@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8cg8dj$n9m$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<sepl65farfg174@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8civ0m$mun$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<38ef1b6e.13588757@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8ckj0b$dkl$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sersfocerfg120@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8clj1p$hto$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sev1blddcqv130@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8cpheb$4d7$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf3n3u87cqv18@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8cuas2$i5m$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <sf67ued0cqv104@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 955902861 207.224.251.168 (Sun, 16 Apr 2000
11:34:21 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:34:21 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
I think that we should move on. Obviously Joy isn't going to change. She
also
doesn't get it that there is no list of acceptable garments given in
scripture,
which lieaves it up to each culture to decide. She will never change past
the
garbage that's been pumped into her tiny brain, and we who think aren't
going to
get sucked into her mindless drivel.
Besides, clothing that "pertains" is no more im****tant these days than is
the
Adventist debate that, contrary to clear scripiture in Exodus and Acts,
and
Colossians, we don't still have to wor****p on Sabbath. Some of these
"churches"
are actually founded on minor dissensions. Otherwise too many wannabe's
who want
to preach and call themselves "ministers" and "pastors" would have no
flocks.
By the way, Joy, there ARE indeed cultures even today wherein men DO wear
skirts, and they do so proudly. The Scots wear skirts, which they call
"kilts".
And if I were a Scotsman in Scotland today, I'd probably be wearing the
garb of
my tribe as many do..It's a CULTURAL issue.
Let's move on to something relevant.
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
Web Images Groups News more »
alt.religion.christian.baptist > John Geoghan killed in the joint - View
Parsed
Show only message text
From: John W <joh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: John Geoghan killed in the joint
Message-ID: <395hkvgns9k2ad2g6meuba0lcgb4mrtbfn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <fe14f4af.0308231216.4679a8e7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: news2.uncensored-news.com
Lines: 15
X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor sup****t,
spam, illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Re****t-Abuse-To: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html#13
X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html
Date: 24 Aug 2003 10:37:52 GMT
Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
Path: sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!
feed.uncensored-news.com!news2.uncensored-news.com!news2.uncensored-
news.com!not-for-mail
On 23 Aug 2003 13:16:19 -0700, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Nicolas The Great)
wrote:
>He was murdered in the joint today
Yep. The moment I heard that he was going to prison, I predicted, "He
won't live a month."
John W
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><>
<>
alt.religion.christian.pentecostal > The false gospel of "Jesus Name"
theology -
View Parsed
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: The false gospel of "Jesus Name" theology
Date: 2000/10/02
Message-ID: <39D96B3A.A48CC4BE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 676915579
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <a6g9os0a45khhvphh9ikgkh9fdn8f67ruj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<t5mgos0pfu263pv61vbm5ldpie3nidmrpj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <rmZh5.3262$sR4.22345
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <tubhossu4lcb87ishuv2rhcpic6cil348u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<4s4i5.1254$A4.19826@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<urejos4r17bb11neb84g191sarqakecram@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3989dc8d.2586828
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <bwli5.4961$sR4.37554@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3992fa06.318867@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <XtFk5.5819$Mr2.51305
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39947f04.1894589@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<avaprscip72iamqu2oaulnt66ldo08gh28@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <9H5v5.78815$g53.1375957
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 970549793 63.225.166.252 (Tue, 03 Oct 2000
00:09:53 CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:09:53 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
My point, Ray, was and is, not that this person wants to call Jesus Jesus
in
Hebrew (which is ridiculous, since Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, the
Hebrew name for Jesus.) My point was and is that this person was
condemning
any and all who disagreed with him as going to hell for refusing to call
Jesus by His blessed Hebrew name (hehahehe) Jesus. Again, Jesus isn't
Hebrew, it's Greek!
And I wasn't accusing anyone of following this heresy. I was asking, "Oh,
good grief! Please tell me that there isn't anyone out there/in here who
believes this nonsense?" And you piped in with my whole point! You are in
China, where you use the Chinese form of Jesus. Fine! But what happened
to
Elohim? What happened to Adonai? What happened to The Father? What
happened
to The Son? What happened to The Holy Spirit? This person's point was
that
only the name "Jesus" could be used by any believer. Hence, another cult!
Jesus didn't say we coudln't call Him Lord, or Christ, which is what
Thomas
called Him in Thomas' famous statement of faith. "You are the Christ, the
Son of the Living God!"Sorry that was Paul. Thomas said, "My Lord and My
God!" So did Thomas make it and Peter didn't? No!
john weatherly
Ray wrote:
> "john weatherly" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:avaprscip72iamqu2oaulnt66ldo08gh28@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I can't personally believe, and I know millions of conservative Bible
> > believing Christians from fundamentalist churches all over this
planet
> > who would reject the concept as foolish
> > that the Son of God would love us so much that HE'd take human
> > form--God in Flesh--Jesus Christ, and die the most painful death
> > imaginable to provide salvation for us, and then He'd reject anyone
> > who didn't "pronounce" or "spell" His name correctly!
>
> Who in the world believes that? "pronounce his name or spell it
> correctly" What pronunciation or spelling do you want, I know I do not
> pronounce it in English very often being in China. and we sure do not
> spell it any where like in English or Greek. What has this to do with
> Acts 2:38, Oneness or Trinity teachings? Oh I think I know, I had to
> jump to the end of your message to see what you were writing about,
> could you do us, or me a favor next time, put a line of his post or so,
> at the beginning, so I can see what you are answering? Thank You.
>
> > This is one of the worst heresies and apostasies anyone ever cloaked
> > in the skin of Christianity!
> > This compares with the heresies of Rome that Mary is the 4th person
of
> > the Trinity "because she obviously had to be God to give birth to
> > God!"
>
> You are not telling me other people believe what that guy wrote, are
> you? I sure do not agree with him, but think if he thinks it is
> pleasing to God to call Jesus by a Hebrew or Greek name as he spells
it,
> God looks at his heart. I not sure I go as far as to say it is a
> Heresies. Only personal opinion of his and the few he pals around
with.
> I say that as here in Hong Kong we have believers from all over the
> world and each part of the world has its own words and terms that fit
> their language for the name of God, Jesus and so on. It all comes
down
> to we wor****p together in Spirit and it just like everyone speaking in
> tongues, the Same God and Christ is there, no matter what pet name they
> uses. To me it sounds like killing a bat with a bomb or rocket then
> with a stick.
>
> I will leave you be, as you are now going on your own trip in to la,la
> land with why you think what you said means something.
> Have a nice day.
>
> Raymond
>
> >
> > It's not rational, it's not reasonable, and it's not in the Bible.
The
> > Great Commission clearly states that we are to go into all the world
> > and preach the Gospel of Christ to every creature, baptizing them in
> > the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is your
> > Trinity right there, giving Father Son and Holy Spirit equal status,
> > and also telling the apostles (and us) to preach and baptize in all
> > three names.
> > I don't see anywhere where the author of Acts (Dr. Luke, I presume)
> > ever says, "the formula Jesus gave us was wrong, and you're now
> > commanded to only use the name of Jesus when you baptize!"
> > Show me the words please. They aren't there!
> > Luke didn't repeat the entire phrase "in the name of the Father, the
> > Son, and the Holy Spirit" for the same reason Jesus didn't repeat the
> > entire Seder meal ritual in the Last Supper passage. He didn't need
> > to. The Jewish Apostles to whom He was ministering already knew the
> > words! He didn't have to repeat them to men who knew the words--and
> > the ritual--intimately. What Jesus DID do during the Last Supper was
> > to give the Apostles the NEW meanings of the elements. Up until then,
> > the Jews had not related the elements of the Seder meal to Jesus
> > Christ, the Son of God. JEsus told His disciples/apostles, "(now) the
> > bread represents my body; (now) the wine represents my blood!"
> >
> > In the same way, Luke tells us, "baptize in the name of Jesus", not
as
> > exact orders, but as a reminder of what Jesus said on the Mount of
> > Olives before He ascended. Are you going to tell me that you consider
> > Dr. Luke's words as superior and super-ceding the words of Jesus
> > Himself? Then you are an apostate!
> > And how could any rational person believe that we must all figure out
> > whether to pronounce Jesus' name in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic? If you
> > read the Bible, as most of you apparently don't, Jesus is called "The
> > Son" in the Old Testament, and "Jesus" in the New. The Archangel,
> > Gabriel told Mary to name Him "Jesus", not Yahweh, not Yeshua. We
> > speak English, or American, so we use the deritive that God gave in
> > our language. If we translate everything else in the Bible, why would
> > we not translate His name?
> > Silly people!
> > john weatherly
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 22:50:42 GMT, dckel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >
> > >Hello Mark,
> > >
> > >You posted:
> > >>>
> > >>> ><dckel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > >>news:3989dc8d.2586828@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> It wasn't pronounced, "JEEZUS," not by Jesus Himself, the
> Apostles,
> > >>> >> Disciples, or even the unbelievers!
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> It was probably pronounced, "Yohoshua," or at least, "Iesous."
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Of course, you know that.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Yet YOU PRONOUNCE IT WRONG, give Him a WRONG NAME when you
> baptize
> > >>> >> people. Now don't you?
> > >>> >
> > >>> >This is a childish game. Don't go down that road.
> > >>> >
> > >>> Actually, it isn't a childish game. It is a solid Truth, one
that
> the
> > >>> UPC church would like us to not notice.
> > >>
> > >>I don;t mean to offen you, but indeed it is a childish game. You
are
> > >>supposing that names do not transliterate, a propostion that
critics
> claim
> > >>time and time again.
> > >>
> > >>Jesus Christ lived in a multilingual society, and even in his death
> his name
> > >>was posted in three languages.
> > >
> > >Absolutely true! BUT, if the RIGHT name is necessary for salvation,
> > >doesn't it seem odd that it isn't im****tant enough to you guys to
USE
> > >the right name? It isn't hard to do. "Y'hoshua." There, I did it.
> > >
> > >WHY transliterate it or change it in ANY WAY? If it is im****tant
> that
> > >it is RIGHT, then why not say it right?
> > >>
> > >>> IF you say we must use the EXACT RIGHT NAME in a formula to be
> saved
> > >>> (and the Bible never does that), then you should at least get the
> name
> > >>> right!
> > >>
> > >>The name of Jesus Christ is that name by which the Apostles
declared
> > >>salvation (Luke 24:47-49) The name of Jesus, which has enormous
> meaning ,
> > >>beyond the scope of thousands of usenet articles to fully
> articulate, is
> > >>associated with the Apostolic practice of baptism through the
> scriptures.
> > >>The name of Jesus Christ is divinely appointed, notwithstanding
> > >>transliteration.
> > >
> > >The Name of "Y'hoshua," you mean. The name "Jesus Christ,"
> > >pronounced, "Jeezus Kriste," was NEVER SAID, NEVER APPOINTED.
> > >You have the Wrong Name!
> > >>
> > >>When we think on, pray in, baptize in, and call upon the name of
> Jesus
> > >>Christ, whether it be in Greek, or Spanish, or English, or Hebrew,
> we know
> > >>that we are refering to JEHOVAH-SALVATION (Ya'shua), and are
> refering to the
> > >>man whom God became when he visited this world to become the sin
> bearer and
> > >>elder brother of fallen man, healing and redeeming His children
from
> the
> > >>wages of sin.
> > >
> > >His Mother didn't name Him in greek, English, or Spanish. She,
being
> > >a nice Hebrew girl, undoubtedly named Him in Hebrew. Since we all
> > >have the verbal facalties to say the correct Name in Hebrew, WHY
> > >TRANSLITERATE?
> > >
> > >Or if you transliterate, why not transliterate it into "Jeorge
> > >Christmas?" It makes as much sense. You are placing false
> > >pronunciations where such false pronunciations are not required in
> any
> > >way! You could really say "Y'hoshua!" You really could!
> > >
> > >And if it really meant salvation to use His REAL NAME, you'd better!
> > >Or you are using a phoney means to salvation!
> > >>
> > >>JESUS CHRIST *is* the exactly right name, if you are speaking
> English.
> > >
> > >You claim so, but you still haven't given one single reason to
> believe
> > >you. You have merely insisted. You haven't presented one single
> iota
> > >of proof.
> > >
> > >His Mother didn't name Him that.
> > >
> > >>We do
> > >>have those who believe that they can decide issues of language for
> > >>themselves, as we live in an age fermenting in pride and ignorance,
> but the
> > >>fact is, these cultural conventions are beyond the scope of any man
> to
> > >>dictate.
> > >
> > >Are you trying to tell me that you, in your pride and ignorance, or
> > >anyone else in theirs, have the right to CHANGE HIS NAME for the
> > >convenience (if it really IS convenient) of language?
> > >>
> > >>Just as a gentile does not propose to become a Jew in order to know
> > >>salvation ("if he be uncir***cized, let him not become
> cicr***cized")
> > >>likewise, no one realistically disputes adequecy of God to bring
> truth into
> > >>His culture.
> > >
> > >Our culture is not stupid. We can easily pronounce, "Y'hoshua." We
> > >really can. And we can understand that even though it is not a
> common
> > >American name, neither is Ahmed, but I know an American with that
> > >name, and he doesn't have to change his name for my convenience
> > >either!
> > >
> > >God can easily use the Name, "Y'hoshua" in relation to my salvation,
> > >if that is im****tant.
> > >
> > >>Bear in mind that the phenomenon of Pentecost cam erasing the
> > >>lines between race and culture.
> > >
> > >So if we want to be inclusive, we should change the Name of God?
> > >Hmmm. Lousy concept. Not Biblical.
> > >
> > >>It is interesting to note that the wonderful
> > >>works of God were heard in each man's own language.
> > >
> > >I can easily read the Gospel in my Bible, even if the Name,
> "Y'hoshua"
> > >is printed on the page. Wouldn't stop or even lower my
> comprehension.
> > >Your argument is so flimsy it blows away.
> > >
> > >>That stans in stark
> > >>contrast to the alternative, in which it might have read that each
> man heard
> > >>the word of God in Hebrew (another potential miracle that God chose
> NOT to
> > >>accomplish)
> > >
> > >The UPC claims it baptises in the Name of the Son of God, and that
> the
> > >rest of us are WRONG because we don't. I am merely pointing out
that
> > >they don't either, and IF the NAME is somehow magical, then you
> should
> > >at least be honest about what NAME you use.
> > >
> > >I am not taking the position that everyone must learn to read Hebrew
> > >or Greek, although I am personally working on learning Greek and
will
> > >learn Hebrew later.
> > >
> > >I am merely pointing out that IF THE NAME IS THAT IM****TANT, you
> > >shouldn't bastardize the name; you should use the Pure Original!
> > >
> > >>
> > >>If one is reading from a Spanish Bible they will read:
> > >>
> > >>"Arrepentios y bauticese cada uno d vostros en el nombre de
> Jesuchristo para
> > >>perdon de los pecados; y recibireis el don d Espiritu Santo"
> > >>
> > >>They have read what name to be baptized in correctly, from the word
> of God.
> > >>
> > >It wouldn't be that much more difficult to read, "Arrepentios y
> > >bauticese cada uno d vostrostros en el nombre de Y'hoshua Christos
> > >para. . ."
> > >
> > >No, your whole theory sinks in a hole.
> > >
> > >We CAN say, "Y'hoshua."
> > >
> > >in the Name of Jesus Christ,
> > >dennis
> > >
> >
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
> > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -
> http://www.uncensored-news.com
> > With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds
> Uncensored News Source
> >
> >
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Apologetics 101: Human Will
Date: 2000/10/22
Message-ID: <39F2A386.DFB809C2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 684370797
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <39E5F9D5.C330E690@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39E61058.89C7CA54
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <#c1sZyLNAHA.279@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39E6EF5B.D9160A55
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <39E6F3C0.5EEF2C93@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Re****t-Abuse-To: a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,alt.religion.apologetics,alt.christne
t.calvinist,alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,alt.atheism,alt.christnet.bible,alt.religion.christian.baptist
I guess it's time to wave a hand at you, again, DR
I see from time to time that you and I have some significant
differences, though I could not list any of them here. I think they're
mostly irrelevant, unless you are a tongues-speaker, and then, we have
more to discuss.
At any rate, having read the below information, I can't think of one
point I'd argue, tho' I would certainly amplify.
For any interested in a little different slant perhaps on DataRat, read
on. Those who would not like to read me while I rip here and tuck there,
may move elsewhere for reading material. Those who appreciate my POV
(there are a few) will appreciate this.
The DataRat wrote:
> Guess it's overdue to explain again what
> Calvinists believe regarding human will...
Yes. I'd like that. I'd like to see if what you say about yourselves is
what I have heard and read about you.
>
> It is well-known that Reformation Christians
> DON'T subscribe to fallen man having
> "free will". However, our position is a ~lot~
> more complicated than just that.
Pardon while I intrude. I'm not an authority on the subject, but I would
object to the above statement on one
point. I would not assume from "It is well-known that Reformed
Christians ..." I would know all they know because I've known one or two
of them. I thought I knew what a Baptist believes, yet I have few
similarities with either George Bush, who courts the "Christian right"
who are neither Christian or right; or with Al Gore, who is a Southern
Baptist, but not like any southern baptist I knew. Well, I was a child,
so I may have not known the local Wa****ngton D.C. officials who went to
church on Sunday, and then lived like demons the rest of the week.
One is left, the other is perceived "Far Right" as if it's a title for
something. We aren't all the same ANYTHING.
Both wish to be perceived "centrist". We just have to examine the
central they are blamed with sup****ting. We of the Christian right
believe in the rights of the unborn. We don't agree with the government
position that the majority are looking to murder babies. But the
children who are unborn have no protector but us, and everyone it has
been saved should at least have their POV represented.
I am one who is NOT represented at either the national, state, or local
level. Tho I am a Christian, there is also no Christian sup****t group
that I have found, that I can either contact by phone or in person. I
have gone to every local organization I can think of, including the
Christian. I will try Salvation Army and Union Gospel Mission next week.
Those of you who pray for others may wish to pray for my situation. I am
retired, 53, disabled, and struggling to survive on Social Security.
>
> 1.) Calvinists deny that natural man's NOT
> having "free will" leaves him with ~no~
> will !
>
Correct.
>
> 2.) We believe that fallen man indeed has
> will ...just not "free" will,
>
yes.
>
> 3.) That this will is an ENSLAVED WILL
> rather than a "free will".
ok
>
>
> And, also:
>
> 4.) That prior to the Fall, our Original Parents
> had a free will of sorts, although it was
> better described as "free moral agency"
> than as "free will" because...
ok
>
>
> 5.) They were free to choose right from wrong,
> and obedience to God over disobedience,
> but WEREN'T "free" to do ~whatever~ they
> willed (as God is able to do).
They could do whatever they felt like doing that they were capable of.
They WERE the first people, so they began our knowledge of what humans
were/are capable of. They were the first of our kind, and they led the
way. At least two thousand years later, we know a few more things about
our universe, if not a whole more about people. (We still can't get
along with too many other cultures: Soviet, Chinese, Cuban...)
>
> 6.) That -upon regeneration (being Born Again)-
> the Elect of God regain that volitional freedom
> which our First parents had, but lost for
> themselves and for us.
>
> The DataRat
Nice essay, Data Rat, other than the comments I posted. I only added a
little to one branch, tho I felt a few points were worth a tweak if only
to show that we can be brothers (I seem to recall that you and I agree
on most basics), and disagree in a friendly manner.
And finally, I am sure I will get a dozen nasy posts/e-mails regarding
my "spamming" so many groups with this post. All I did was push the
respond button. The guy who sent this out (Hint: His name starts with
DataRat), is the one who put all the groups in the list. I wanted you
all to realize who's doing this. Explorer strips the long ng list out,
but I'm in Netscape now, so you'll see the full list to which DataRat
posts this if you will open it in Netscape. ;)
IOW, if this note is posted to 500 ng's, then you know how many DataRat
is posting.
john
john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
sn-us alt.religion.christian.20-
something:52453 alt.religion.christian.baptist:570926
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy:311503 alt.religion.christian.calvary-
chapel:171066 alt.religion.christian.pentecostal:345120
From: jw <john_weatherly47<no>yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.20-
something,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.biblestud
y,alt.religion.christian.calvary-
chapel,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal
Subject: Re: Explanation
Message-ID: <39p8409ct86mo0ghgmnpfoa94ambt1o2e2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <MPG.1aa6042179945533989cb4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<kvjo309n6sjcnm0mgd38mq11dhmf3m83ei@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<40jq305jvaipcqhnu9amtrd57gb6p0lnt8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <MPG.1aa7435232a0dfa9989cc1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <srvt30t1j973k6rvf2h1s3cgia9a2vnvkc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<403f4874$1_3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <6gv0409dpcqfsa1k4t3g55on0u85khuhms@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <UD50c.1285$rD5.876@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<kro340lbirkr5naacls5nuc3l6nlla1dcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<7e8b23697509f688e2586c7b32017062@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: news4.uncensored-news.com
Lines: 183
X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor sup****t,
spam, illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Re****t-Abuse-To: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html#13
X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html
Date: 2 Mar 2004 10:41:00 GMT
Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $6.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08supernews.com!feed.uncensored-news.com!
news4.uncensored-news.com!news4.uncensored-news.com!not-for-mail
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0632-2, 08/10/2006), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
x-no-archive:yes
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:39:51 GMT, Bracebridge Elaine's smoochie
<ujie_the_troll@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>"jw
>>
>> x-no-archive:yes
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:05:24 GMT, "Bootstrap Bill"
>> <wrcousert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Why are you archiving my posts when I choose to NOT archive them?
>
>It's not because you have the gift of charisma I'm sure? It just came to
>ujibwa, Bill could be doing a book on demons! Yes I think I've hit on
>it... :)
>
>The best way not to be archived it to keep your thoughts to yourself.
>jimmy
I don't remember rattling your cage.
jw
>
>
>
>>
>> jw
>>
>> >"john+weatherly @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
>> >news:6gv0409dpcqfsa1k4t3g55on0u85khuhms@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:24:10 +0800, "Raymond"
>> >> <NOSPAM-rwknapp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"jw @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
>> >> >news:srvt30t1j973k6rvf2h1s3cgia9a2vnvkc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:42:46 -0600, DOC <DOC@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <40jq305jvaipcqhnu9amtrd57gb6p0lnt8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
bleahcim49
>> >> >> >@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
sez in this lil' ole news'froup...!
>> >> >> >> >>And YES, ALL sinners are WELCOME in the Church. That's WHY
the
>> >Church
>> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >>THERE.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That is not what you said before.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >It was ME who posted that, FYI................ and I stand
behind it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And I agreed wholeheartedly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The problem arose when the question, "Would an atheist be
welcome in
>> >> >> a Christian church?" ("Yes") morphed into "Would your church
allow an
>> >> >> atheist to serve in a position of responsibility?" The answer
to THAT
>> >> >> question (a TOTALLY different issue) would be "No."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That would be tantamount to a Christian theologian asking a
Muslim
>> >> >> congregation if he could get up and conduct a Christian
evangelical
>> >> >> gospel service (including preaching a gospel message) in the
mosque.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The answer would be, "Of COURSE the Christian theologian would
be
>> >> >> welcome to attend a Muslim service; however, of COURSE the
Christian
>> >> >> would NOT be permitted to preach a gospel message in the
mosque."
>> >> >> (Now I do not know if a Christian would actually be permitted to
>> >> >> attend a service in a mosque; I merely created a metaphor.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I was invited to attend a service in a mosque while in the
Philippine and
>> >> >even teach them how to use one gong to get many musical sounds out
of it,
>> >> >instead of using the I think ten they used. The Christians asked
me not
>> >to
>> >> >go,
>> >>
>> >> They weren't Christians. Satan wouldn't have arranged for you to go
to
>> >> begin with. The Holy Spirit got you an offer to minister, and the
>> >> devil talked you out of it.
>> >>
>> >> You failed. However, not to beat you to death. We all make
mistakes.
>> >> Pick it up, brush it off, shake it off, straighten your shoulders,
>> >> krick your neck, adjust your specs, and sit back down for
>> >> some prayer , repentance, some requesting forgiveness, some
>> >> cleansing. Do not forget His Holy Spirit makes it all right again
if
>> >> we truly belong to Him.
>> >>
>> >> You now know why so many laugh at me in here. I speak the truth.
>> >>
>> >> When you are cleansed and repented up, you will be ready the next
>> >> time!! Right?
>> >>
>> >> and Bible study.
>> >>
>> >> The NEXT time
>> >> as they said to play the gong in that mosque would be a form of
>> >> wor****p
>> >> >to that religion.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense. If you are going through the motions to be polite, you
are
>> >> NOT wor****ping. However, even if you DO feel you have "wor****pped"
all
>> >> you need to is repent!!! It's not like sin is unforgivable.
>> >>
>> >> Repent, and the Bible says it's "sweet incense" unto the Lord.
>> >>
>> >> You need to get to a store and pick up a Bible studies series like
>> >> Navigators.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So I turn the invite down.
>> >>
>> >> Bad idea! God sent you an op****tunity; you allowed Satan to
dissuade
>> >> you.
>> >>
>> >> I sure I could of went,
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you could have gone; even more harshly, you SHOULD have gone!
>> >>
>> >> But,NEXT time!
>> >>
>> >> And pray for wisdom next time you need a quick decision. Also do
not
>> >> forget that you can call down miracles, and then you'll know if God
>> >> truly is there for you.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> as I
>> >> >and the Hajji their leader were friends and would talk about God
and the
>> >> >things God did in the Christian faith.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. Next time!
>> >>
>> >> Now a unbeliever would not be aloud
>> >> >to Mecca and attend any services in their "holy city".
>> >>
>> >> So go to the leader of the group you declined,and say you've had a
2nd
>> >> thought. Offer to do it or something next time. Repent and bow and
>> >> scrape, anything for a next op****tunity.
>> >>
>> >> gb
>> >>
>> >> jw
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> jw
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
_________________________________________________________________________
__
>> >_
>> >> >___
>> >> >> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>> >> >http://www.uncensored-news.com
>> >> >> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News
Source
>> >> ><><><><><><><><>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
_________________________________________________________________________
___
>> >___
>> >> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>> >http://www.uncensored-news.com
>> >> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>> ><><><><><><><><>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________________
______
>> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
>> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <>
<><><><><><><>
>>
_________________________________________________________________________
______
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><>
<><><><><><>
From: John Weatherly <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-
orthodox,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,alt.religion.christian.pente
costal,alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Is the KJV unreadable? WAS: If a man carries a Bible
everywhere he goes
Message-ID: <39q4cvs2pk98plnv1ioiknmb7i8h2sq6m2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <p8vjbvsva1j8jrak1pcbl4mru83vijdpbj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <b9dm6t$i6hoa$1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3eba5f04$1$97520$a0465688@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<e30mbvcq4iqgvvb9fb7nk6thtlkbfrenan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3EBB16D3.6030909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<jpwva.4781$h7.212541@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3EBEE914.2060004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<b9ncqo$bhc$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<tl60cvsbo0glljmjf1f8etnehmars04cgb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3EC08293.4050906@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<b9qci1$9vm$3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <9_6wa.129654$AG6.22504085
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:05:05 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.3.82.166
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1052928119 67.3.82.166 (Wed, 14 May 2003
11:01:59 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:01:59 CDT
On Tue, 13 May 2003 14:07:01 GMT, "Mark Bassett"
<mbasset@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
><v...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:b9qci1$9vm$3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> The same arguments are made in Greece about Koine.
>>
>> Modern media has made people slackers in usage in both languages.
>>
>> But both the Koine-Classical point in the Greek language and the
>> KJV-Shakespeare point in the English language were when the language
>> relatively stopped changing as much - precisely because there appeared
>> a defining body of literature.
>>
>> And if you try to use CURRENT language, you always have to play
>> catch-up.
>
>Salient comments. Thanks!
Nonsense from another KJV lover.
John WFrom: Sniper <Sni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Deut 22 text-Do you rape your wife?
Date: 2000/11/08
Message-ID: <3A08C894.2829D06A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: 691145185
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3a051ac5.6707876@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3A0588AA.3714EA96
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <co6b0t8tqq6nertive0iupuqlghc0oo3u1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3A059B46.CB605678@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8FE376ED5mirelexmissioncom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3A05C214.A5B6E049@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<jo4c0to492144tr3g5bbksi0m5lse0ti5v@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3A06CB4A.640BB546
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <57ne0t45nuopqpq481em7rnf8bgflbc4c5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3A0766EA.817B2458@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <8u8v0m$b66$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3A081D82.2216FEF8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <3A07E4A7.B4BE2B62@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<i97i0tofepmml3hiv3qjqnkajviele69da@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 973679126 158.252.164.89 (Wed,
08 Nov 2000 02:25:26 PST)
Organization: Best of the best
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 02:25:26 PST
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
John Weatherly wrote:
>
> If you'll excuse me, I know I am interrupting, but there is no basis
> in the New Testament for a man to ***ually assault either his wife or
> any other woman. If a man ***ually assaults his wife, then, yes, he is
> guilty of rape. The man can not make a habit of denying his wife ***
> or the woman her husband. But occassionally not wanting intercourse or
> other ***ual activity for health reasons is certainly acceptable.
> On the other hand, as I alluded to previously, neither the husband nor
> the wife has the right in God's eyes to deny ***ual relations merely
> because he/she "isn't in the mood". *** within marriage is an act of
> love. "Not feeling like it" or "not being in the mood" should not be
> an issue.
Really? So if the man wants ***, & the woman isn't in
the mood, your god wants her to give it up anyway? I
think you're being evasive then, is it rape or isn't
it under these cir***stances, if *** was then forced?
> And I see no mention of the issue of husband raping wife in
> Deuteronomy.
The topic came up not because Deut. talked about a
husband raping a wife, but because Douglass the pig
said a man can not be guilty of rape if it's his wife
he forced *** upon.
> john weatherly
>
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:12:57 GMT, Sniper <Sni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >Doug wrote:
> >>
> >> Robibnikoff wrote:
> >>
> >> > > How can their be rape in a marriage?
> >> >
> >> > Goodness, you ARE stupid. If the *** is FORCED, it is rape.
> >>
> >> If a person is married, they have consented to have *** with their
> >> partner. Thus, isn't not forced. It was at their consent.
> >>
> >> If they separate or get divorced, that's another matter altogether.
> >
> >Well Doug, you've done a remarkable job thus far
> >in avoiding the question. Let's try again: What
> >if she's not in the mood? Do you still think you
> >have the right to have *** with her, there & then?
> >
> >We anxiously await your reply.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored
News Source
Web Images Groups News more »
alt.religion.christian.baptist > Johnny the Baptist - View Parsed
Show only message text
Path: sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!
phobos.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!feed.news.qwest.net!
news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John W <joh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.prayer,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: Johnny the Baptist
Message-ID: <3bf2cv8dim7dtqbv35fin4rf98qn4v7vt0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <mvlrbv4iii9l8a1tnqa75r6k52kmjffjfe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<t3orbv8vbg6sln58fr3915c5cdkd05ilb1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<0morbvg0q9f6f03f6o3g83p5vllafuao92@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<uaqrbvc46kn8mks9tv1k2rv9611a048kt3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <vbsmg01sbbt552
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <t5subvcgel1di0tcj10j1aauaobivb5t6i@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<cv50cvgnbv09u0t4lrfvf2gvjgsd3ml4ua@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<ns80cvgpiikbu3nhtqui425oatb6kr7ccl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <ig%va.30350$eJ2.6948
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <vc1rvg5gp3d4f8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <eF6wa.30376$eJ2.21461
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 59
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:47:45 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.228.119.245
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1052851665 12.228.119.245 (Tue, 13 May 2003
13:47:45 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:47:45 CDT
On Tue, 13 May 2003 06:45:18 -0700, "vernonoj" <vern...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"Jim Upchurch" <fle...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:vc1rvg5gp3d4f8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "vernonoj"
>> > Don, this is incredible, unbelievable.
>>
>> > As much as you have posted here and there is a "CLAIM" that they
don't
>know
>> > who you are.
>>
>>
>> > They all must be Baptists or close cousins.
>>
>> Please post his religious views since he hasn't. If you
>> can't go ahead and snuggle up to your drink at the bar
>> and tell everyone how observant you are. Maybe
>> they'll buy it.
>>
>> jim
>
>Well within this thread with you he has already confirmed.
>
>He has been called and has earned the uncontestable right to be called
>Reverend or Pastor at various churches.
LOL! ROFL!
>
>He has more years of "pastoring, teaching, encouraging" on staff than
you
>have years of even being able to read.
LOL!
>
>He is an iconoclast. (He was apparently born that way)
>
>He is politically a Libertarian (consistent with being an iconoclast)
>
>He is fed up with "Christianese"
>
>He loves to pull the leg of the self righteous. This comes from being a
>knowledgeable iconoclast, probably the most theologically and biblically
>knowledgeable to ever participate in this news group.
LOL! ROFL!
>
>I have told you nothing that he has not stated directly to you and
revealed
>nothing that he has stated in other posts on this News Group recently.
Just that YOU have BELIEVED his garbage. The rest of us have merely
observed his ALWAYS nasty comments and total LACK of scriptural basis
for aNYTHING he says, which SHOUTS that he's truly a wolf in sheep's
clothing in the church, and he takes the wool skin off in here.
John W
>
Web Images Groups News more »
alt.religion.christian.baptist > PTL With Me My Friends! PTL!! - View
Parsed
Show only message text
Path: sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!
newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!
easynews.com!easynews!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-
mail
From: John W <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: PTL With Me My Friends! PTL!!
Message-ID: <3bq0cvcp6a0es8qji0a8jvf5365ce5oshc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <ap4sbvsf2f0lt76o27j0it9pan2n3oouf8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3EBE57D6.2ABDD387@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <2l20cv8slr7utk9ak9he8a50l92npftk1k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <gth0cvgto3asp8j7tqnioc4go9cmpgd75r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 20:42:03 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.3.68.255
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1052797139 67.3.68.255 (Mon, 12 May 2003
22:38:59 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 22:38:59 CDT
On Mon, 12 May 2003 21:19:20 -0400, nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 May 2003 13:57:58 -0700, John W <joh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>the following funny stuff in Usenet News'Froups! :
>
>>On Mon, 12 May 2003 02:01:58 +1200, David' Chariot
>><beth_marcab...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>garbage bagged , tagged, and tossed
>
>>YOU are TOO kind!
>>
>>PTL! And I believe I said I forget SOMETIMES, as others have also
>>mentioned.
>>
>>Your memory for details is VERY selective, isn't it?
>>
>John, I placed DC in the killfile. He has proven how non-christian he
>is in several ways:
>1 by admitting he has accepted lies
>2 by his continued attempts at trying to dig up old arguments
>3 by his constant attempts at bait-and-switch
>
>
Ditto. I merely read him for a chuckle. He and several others I've put
on the "Comedy Channel" in the group.
John W
>- -
>==================================================================
>What was the dentist doing in Panama?...Looking for the Root Canal!
>==================================================================
Web Images Groups News more »
alt.religion.christian.baptist > High Drama: Pretender and False Teacher
- View
Parsed
Show only message text
Path: sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news-
out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!
not-for-mail
From: John W <john_weathe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: High Drama: Pretender and False Teacher
Message-ID: <3c6obv4t4qeiqhflipjpf154qa0vs6g2lg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <iPR0a.5627$KM2.1288281@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<fhhj6v8lntm5uogjrvd2vura8qep3rhto3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <_cmaa.40657$ki.1472615
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <02bkbvs683siv71knie6h1vp3ajqhghj96@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<VzCua.18531$5M.1795623@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 261
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 14:12:11 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.228.119.245
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1052514665 12.228.119.245 (Fri, 09 May 2003
16:11:05 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 16:11:05 CDT
On Fri, 09 May 2003 00:25:25 GMT, "John Hennekes"
<johnhenne...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"John W" <joh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:02bkbvs683siv71knie6h1vp3ajqhghj96@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I just found this judgment pronounced against me by the perfect John
>> H.
>>
>> My one-word comment is.
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>>
>> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
>> And a second later, John Hennekes cast the first throne, hitting Jesus
>> Christ on the side of the head!
>>
>Again, something else dredged up from the past. I've publically
apologized
>for this already. Why are you trying so hard to restart an old
arguement?
>It's best to let those that sleep to stay asleep.
>
Sorry. I am not trying to rekindle the past. I had not recalled seeing
this before, or your apology. I apologize again.
John W
>> John
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:27:22 GMT, "John Hennekes"
>> <johnhenne...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John W" <john_weatherl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >news:fhhj6v8lntm5uogjrvd2vura8qep3rhto3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:13:50 GMT, "John Hennekes"
>> >> <johnhenne...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The Drama of John Weatherly's Religion
>> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >Opening Scene:
>> >> >
>> >> >Curious "Anyone could have easily posted this. Because it is so
>recent, I
>> >> >doubt if
>> >> >it's legitimate."
>> >> >
>> >> >DocW: "As I suspected----- I know what it's like to be forged, as
some
>> >have
>> >> >also done that to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >I just wanted to get John;s side of the story, as I do NOT trust
the
>> >> >'source' who notified me of it! :O)"
>> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >Voice in the background says:
>> >> >Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be
spiritually
>> >minded
>> >> >is life and peace.
>> >> >=============================================================
>> >>
>> >> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>> >> Hypocrisy.
>> >>
>> >> "For if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us,
>> >> and to cleanse us from unrighteousness."
>> >>
>> >> "Forgive 70 X 7."
>> >>
>> >> You are a hypocrite. I have confessed, and I have repented
PUBLICLY.
>> >> When you point your finger at me, demanding spiritual perfection,
you
>> >> merely point out that you are not perfect.
>> >>
>> >> "Judge not..."
>> >>
>> >> You quote VERY selectively, Mr. Pharisee. Read up on what Jesus
>> >> thought of the hypocrites, like you and your fiance, Elaine
Mathews.
>> >
>> >Re: High Drama: Pretender and False Teacher
>> >Re: John Weatherly Is a Pathological Liar and a Pretend Christian
>> >
>> >Check the dates, and you'll see that these 2 posts, which you've just
now
>> >found, were dated prior to. Prior to what, you might ask? Perhaps,
you
>> >can still remember the answer to that question.
>> >
>> >JohnH-In Christ
>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >Matthew 5:38-39, Titus 2:7-8, James 1:19-20
>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >
>> >> John W
>> >> - + not perfect, just forgiven --+
>> >
>> >> >ACT 1
>> >> >
>> >> >JOHN W: "Thanks, Curious. However, you are accusing me as well.
You
>might
>> >> >want
>> >> >to re-check YOUR attitude. Even Ms Matthews, who is usually quiet
and
>> >> >non-judgemental jumped on me for "vulgar language". Since when is
>> >> >"vagina" vulgar? Some folk need to grow up.
>> >> >
>> >> >I see no scriptural prohibition of talking about *** in non-
explicit
>> >> >terms. I see no .... never mind."
>> >> >=============================================================
>> >> >Voice in the background says:
>> >> >1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is
among
>you
>> >> >envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as
>men?
>> >> >=============================================================
>> >> >ACT 2
>> >> >
>> >> >JOHN W: (In response to ujb) "you're being an asshole, to quote
>Jesus."
>> >> >
>> >> >DOCW: "John, please--- Jesus never said any such thing."
>> >> >
>> >> >JOHN W: "Yeah. In fact, he did. I'll happily mention the scholars.
Dr.
>> >Jess
>> >> >Moody, Dr. John Dirks, Dr. Phil Johnson. I'll also admit I've
talked
>> >> >with an equal # of scholars who disagree.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm, sorry you can't handle reality. That's prudery, and it's
phony."
>> >> >
>> >> >DOCW: "Call it phony, or me phony if you like, John. Jesus NEVER
>CALLED
>> >> >ANYONE AN 'asshole'.
>> >> >
>> >> >Go ahead-- prove it biblically -- the truth is, you cannot do so,
>> >> >because HE NEVER SAID IT.
>> >> >
>> >> >And FYI, I handle reality quite well, thanks."
>> >> >
>> >> >DOCW: "You're letting ujb push your buttons, which is exactly what
he
>> >loves.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ignore the idiot, please."
>> >> >
>> >> >JOHN W: "Well, I'll soon be ignoring you both.
>> >> >
>> >> >You have a sharp tongue, and you've used it on me twice now in two
>> >> >days."
>> >> >
>> >> >DOCW: "And both times, you deserved it.
>> >> >You should know by now that when someone posts lies about what
Jesus
>> >> >said, I don't just sit back and ignore it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jesus NEVER called ANYONE an 'asshole' and since you continue to
>> >> >insist He did, then go ahead and try proving it, as I mentioned in
my
>> >> >other reply to you.
>> >> >
>> >> >You also left yourself WIDE OPEN to suspicion by the ***ual
overtones
>> >> >you posted in your 'explanation'.
>> >> >I tried to overlook that- Mark Basset called me a fool for
overlooking
>> >> >it........ which I took exception to, since I am no fool.
>> >> >
>> >> >However----- you say in one second that you are not guilty, then
in
>> >> >the next, you say' but I repented, so can't we just leave it at
>> >> >that...'
>> >> >So-- which is it?
>> >> >
>> >> >And yes, I DO 'have as sharp tongue'... I put it to darn good use
>> >> >fighting heretical comments such what you claimed Jesus said."
>> >> >
>> >> >JOHN W: " I wno't stroke your ego when you give me YOUR opinion as
>> >> >though it's scripture."
>> >> >
>> >> >DOCW: "Since I don't have any enlarged ego to feed, for starters -
and
>> >when
>> >> >have I ever asked you to 'stroke' my ego?"
>> >> >
>> >> >JOHN W: "ujb deserved a nasty reply, and he got it. We all have
our
>> >limits.
>> >> >He's reached his; you've reached yours."
>> >> >
>> >> >DOCW: "Yes, I have --- with him, and with you.
>> >> >I'm sick and tired of your constant boasting about your presumed
>> >> >'education' and how you claim to 'be so much better educated than
most
>> >> >other people you've met'.
>> >> >
>> >> >You're constantly claiming to be a trained this, a professional
>> >> >that....
>> >> >Get real, John.
>> >> >
>> >> >A person with a REAL education d |
