Go To Home Page
Messiah

Key: = Posted Today and Yesterday



'Theology Discussion Group'

Travel to the Highway home page and read our many fine articles and view the links to other sites by clicking on the blue The Highway logo in the upper right hand corner of this page.

« Forum Guidelines »

Total Messages Loaded: 287

reformedeagle -:- Looking for a church home -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 23:43:56 (PST)

Hail -:- KJV-onlyism -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 15:49:12 (PST)
_ Webservant -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:52:19 (PST)
__ John P. -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:55:02 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:18:05 (PST)
____ John P -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 19:11:36 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 21:13:13 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: You are ...... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:22:42 (PST)
___ Hail -:- Re: You are ...... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 19:09:01 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: You are ...... -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:19:28 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 21:47:18 (PST)
__ Hail -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 17:09:03 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 09:15:06 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Goodness .... -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:53:03 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Goodness .... -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:08:43 (PST)
______ stan -:- Re: Ever ..... -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:12:31 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: Ever ..... -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:24:11 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 16:05:00 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 20:24:40 (PST)

Anne -:- Luke 2:14...which translation? -:- Tues, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:21:59 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Luke 2:14...which translation? -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:03:36 (PST)

Kenneth -:- Justification in Luther -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 15:00:50 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Justification in Luther -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 17:26:10 (PST)

Prestor John -:- Christmas Message -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 16:57:13 (PST)
_ JOwen -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 08:50:39 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 12:42:24 (PST)
__ RJ -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:50:56 (PST)
___ JOwen -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:55:52 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 19:51:50 (PST)
_____ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 18:41:38 (PST)
______ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:44:32 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:57:24 (PST)
________ marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 21:49:31 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Get a Job?? -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)
__________ Marrowman -:- Re: Get a Job? -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 14:41:11 (PST)
___________ Marrowman -:- Re: Get a Job? -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 15:11:28 (PST)
__________ chris -:- Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:18:46 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re: Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:15:26 (PST)
_____ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 15:51:03 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- On second thought... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 09:34:20 (PST)
_______ JOwen -:- Re: On second thought... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:06:10 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 08:17:28 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:25:30 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 19:20:25 (PST)
________ Puritan -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 04:42:43 (PST)
_________ marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:20:30 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:38:49 (PST)
___________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:16:53 (PST)
____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:42:41 (PST)
_________ chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 16:27:05 (PST)
__________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:30:42 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 00:55:44 (PST)
____________ marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 01:28:54 (PST)
_____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:47:35 (PST)
_____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:19:00 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:50:58 (PST)
____________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:28:50 (PST)
___________ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:31:58 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 08:32:23 (PST)
__________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:24:46 (PST)
_______ puritan -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 16:57:22 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 21:22:49 (PST)
_________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:04:08 (PST)
Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 13:45:08 (PST)
___________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 16:04:28 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:50:29 (PST)
_____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:46:45 (PST)
_____________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 13:14:56 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- One Last Attempt! -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 21:24:07 (PST)
_____________ Puritan -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 07:06:47 (PST)
______________ Prestor John -:- Oh JOwen!!!! -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 16:25:24 (PST)
______________ lurkerJr -:- What about the Tree? -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 09:40:06 (PST)
_______________ marrowman -:- Re: What about the Tree? -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:21:20 (PST)
________________ Marrowman -:- Re: What about the Tree? -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:32:36 (PST)
______________ laz -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 08:41:58 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 13:20:31 (PST)
____ chris -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 13:36:23 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 19:10:55 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 19:55:41 (PST)
__ chris -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 14:14:44 (PST)

Tom -:- Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 13:52:06 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 15:05:05 (PST)
__ asheep -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 23:27:25 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 08:05:14 (PST)
____ sheep -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 23:02:46 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 14:16:45 (PST)
____ sheep -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 22:56:27 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 07:21:47 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:29:55 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 23:41:24 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 11:26:33 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:45:35 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 07:40:26 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 13:09:31 (PST)

laz -:- Three Wise Men -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 13:32:10 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- The three wise guys -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 21:19:50 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: The names are .... -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 15:42:27 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Three Wise Men -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 14:47:31 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Three Wise Men -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 20:50:11 (PST)

Prestor John -:- To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 19:42:26 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:16:46 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 20:44:48 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 14:01:51 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 05:44:06 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 21:08:20 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Say what? -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 14:51:12 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Say what? -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 07:31:11 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Say what? -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 17:08:03 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Say again. . .!! -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 19:41:58 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Say what? -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 14:18:01 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 20:19:37 (PST)

Jimmy -:- The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:45:38 (PST)
_ Puritan -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 17:48:11 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 22:00:20 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:09:21 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:42:32 (PST)
_____ Puritan -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 08:43:02 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 14:44:08 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:10:59 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 13:15:35 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:23:01 (PST)
______ Rod -:- The nature of the statement -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 16:11:44 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: The nature of the statement -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 16:35:02 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: The nature of the statement -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 20:02:20 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re: The nature of the statement -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:54:25 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 23:58:27 (PST)
__ Jimmy -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 17:54:03 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:27:25 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:29:35 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 05:25:06 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:46:06 (PST)

Anne -:- Why circumcision? -:- Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 14:31:22 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Why circumcision?? -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:51:08 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Why circumcision? -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:37:17 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Why circumcision? -:- Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 15:00:42 (PST)

saved -:- The Majesty of Christ -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:44:14 (PST)

Puritan -:- Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 05:17:17 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 19:45:11 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 15:55:08 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 14:44:13 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 07:57:28 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:49:15 (PST)
___ sean -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 14:14:01 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 13:01:14 (PST)
_ Puritan -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 18:24:12 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 19:32:22 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:35:08 (PST)
____ puritan -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 17:22:43 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 05:41:03 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 20:49:10 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Thanks for sharing the site! NT -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 20:28:16 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 17:47:27 (PST)
__ JOwen -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 23:47:41 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 00:13:27 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:39:04 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 13:49:19 (PST)
______ Rod -:- I understood, Tom, just... -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 15:10:43 (PST)
_______ Prestor John -:- Re: I understood, Tom, just... -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 21:57:01 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: I understood, Tom, just... -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 23:54:45 (PST)
_________ Prestor John -:- Re: I understood, Tom, just... -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 19:54:41 (PST)
__________ Rod -:- My brother loves to -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 22:35:28 (PST)
___________ stan -:- Re: My what .... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:03:41 (PST)
____________ Prestor John -:- Re: My what .... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:56:25 (PST)
_____________ stan -:- Re: yes .... -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:45:40 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: yes .... -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:50:21 (PST)
_______________ stan -:- Re: UUuuuugggghhhh! NT ;-) -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 15:16:44 (PST)

Eric -:- Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 15:01:56 (PST)
_ JOwen -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 18:27:26 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:20:43 (PST)
___ Jowen -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 23:40:05 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 14:15:30 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 17:09:04 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 01:37:19 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:04:35 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:33:12 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 21:50:43 (PST)
___ JOwen -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 22:36:52 (PST)
____ Eric -:- Let me clarify the question -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:36:11 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Let me clarify the question -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 20:24:40 (PST)
______ Eric -:- Thanks! nt -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:53:44 (PST)

Hail -:- Contemporary Music -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:24 (PST)
_ Lurker Jr -:- Rap Music Comin' On... -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:51:04 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Music -:- Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 22:49:20 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Music -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:27:42 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Music -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:25:28 (PST)

Tom -:- My last post on this topic -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 23:38:44 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 00:33:19 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:18:18 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 13:06:16 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:39:56 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:58:55 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 00:44:42 (PST)
__ Eric -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:08:00 (PST)

laz -:- NEW SEMINARY?? -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 22:36:37 (PST)

Bdavid -:- Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 11:19:01 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 17:54:01 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 18:02:38 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 09:56:07 (PST)
_ Eric -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:28:48 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:31:02 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:18:35 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:51:28 (PST)
__ John -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 18:02:22 (PST)
___ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 22:15:17 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:17:23 (PST)
_____ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 13:28:09 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 20:45:05 (PST)
_______ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 22:10:18 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 21:39:51 (PST)

Tom -:- eugenes-logos-graphe approach -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:29:37 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: eugenes-logos-graphe approach -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 19:10:19 (PST)

Bdavid -:- Contemporary Christian music -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 20:52:42 (PST)
_ Jimmy -:- Straining at gnats :o) (NT) -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 16:43:59 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Straining at gnats :o) (NT) -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 17:22:03 (PST)
___ Jimmy -:- Phenomena VS nomena -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 17:38:12 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 21:29:44 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 09:08:05 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 18:46:07 (PST)
____ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 20:05:14 (PST)
_____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 20:58:31 (PST)
______ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:13:30 (PST)
_______ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 21:38:13 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:42:54 (PST)
________ Bdavid -:- Re: THE REAL ISSUE HERE -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:26:51 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: THE REAL ISSUE HERE -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 17:35:10 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:10:37 (PST)
_________ Michael -:- Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 06:16:41 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:22:19 (PST)
___________ MikeT -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:46:38 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 00:42:03 (PST)
___________ Brother Bret -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:59:12 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:19:25 (PST)
_____________ Mike T -:- thanks Tom & Brett... -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:50:38 (PST)
______________ Tom -:- Re: thanks Tom & Brett... -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 00:49:22 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- Try 'Caedmons Call' very good nt -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 07:32:09 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:05:28 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:48:37 (PST)
_______ Eric -:- Good point -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:35:17 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: My half cent worth. -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 19:46:41 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- I see we've had -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:41:00 (PST)
______ stan -:- Re: What's really... -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 19:21:44 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: What's really... -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:07:14 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 23:12:47 (PST)

JOwen -:- A Long Shot...A Book -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 08:44:05 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: A Long Shot...A Book -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 17:28:38 (PST)

Bdavid -:- should christians fight in war? -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 23:06:14 (PST)
_ john -:- Re: should christians fight in war? -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 17:01:58 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: should christians fight in war? -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 23:57:59 (PST)

-:- THE MAN I AM STARING AT -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 16:50:00 (PST)
_ John -:- Re: THE MAN I AM STARING AT -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 18:37:18 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: THE MAN I AM STARING AT -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 00:16:42 (PST)
___ -:- Why I did it -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 16:48:42 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Why I did it -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 11:38:27 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Fasting -:- Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:39:37 (PST)
_ Jimmy -:- More Straining at gnats (NT) -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 16:47:23 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Fasting -:- Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 15:17:17 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Fasting -:- Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:01:34 (PST)
_ David Teh -:- Re: Fasting -:- Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 04:24:58 (PST)
__ John -:- Re: Fasting -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 01:17:35 (PST)
___ stan -:- Re: Fishing -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 21:03:13 (PST)
____ john -:- Re: Fishing -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 04:47:57 (PST)
___ Eric -:- Re: Fasting -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 09:25:09 (PST)
____ John -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 00:36:04 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 09:24:34 (PST)
______ John -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 17:21:34 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 19:32:11 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re: Fasting -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 12:59:47 (PST)
_________ Eric -:- What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:15:36 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re: What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:20:51 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:58:00 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:20:29 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- An Addition -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:50:48 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: An Addition -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 20:06:00 (PST)
_____________ Tom -:- Re: An Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 01:01:25 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- Last Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:40:15 (PST)
____________ Eric -:- Re: An Addition -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:14:11 (PST)
_____________ Tom -:- Re: An Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 00:39:41 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: An Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:45:11 (PST)
_______________ Eric -:- I agree -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:40:31 (PST)
________________ Dutch -:- Re: I agree -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 15:10:11 (PST)
_________________ Tom -:- Re: I agree -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:03:35 (PST)
__________________ Eric -:- Look close... -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:43:48 (PST)
___________________ Tom -:- My last post on this topic -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 23:35:54 (PST)
________ john -:- Re: Fasting -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 15:42:12 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re: Fasting -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 17:52:28 (PST)
____ John P -:- Re: Fasting -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 09:47:00 (PST)

Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998

Subject: Looking for a church home
From: reformedeagle
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 23:43:56 (PST)
Email Address: reformedeagle_lv_nv@msn.com

Message:
I am looking for a group to worship with in the greater Las Vegas, Nevada area which is baptistic, holds to the doctrines of grace, and to a reformed government. Denominational or non-denominational is unimportant. It can be a mission, a church, or just a group of like-minded people who have not yet formed a church. If you belong to or know of such a group, please e-mail me at reformedeagle_lv_nv@msn.com. Thank you.
Subject: KJV-onlyism
From: Hail
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 15:49:12 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com

Message:
I am in an e-mail debate with a staunch KJV-onlyist that insists the KJV is the only true Word of God. The person brought up this verse: Matthew 5:18 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' How would you go about showing that God's Word is inerrant in light of the fact that no single translation is 100% correct to every jot and tittle? Thanks, Hail
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Webservant
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:52:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am in an e-mail debate with a staunch KJV-onlyist that insists the KJV is the only true Word of God. The person brought up this verse: Matthew 5:18 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' How would you go about showing that God's Word is inerrant in light of the fact that no single translation is 100% correct to every jot and tittle? Thanks, Hail
---
Common sense should tell anyone that the KJV is only a translation for the original Greek and Hebrew. And the Bible has been translated into many other languages. The Word of God in its purest form would be in the original languages. Language changes all the time. For one thing, new words are added every day. Old English is now archaic, and many of the words have lost their meaning over the centuries. However, while KJV is only a translation, it is a superior translation, in my humble opinion, for several reasons. For one thing, the concordances are keyed to the KJV. For another, it seems to be easier to memorize. Also, it seems that the later translations have tried to accomodate our modern culture to some degree. Incidentally, nowhere in the verse you mentioned did I find the KJV mentioned. Stratford Orthodox Presbyterian Church www.stratfordopc.org/
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: John P.
To: Webservant
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:55:02 (PST)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
One more reason why the KJV is a superior translation: in the original Greek, and I believe the Hebrew, too (although I don't know Hebrew), there is a distinction made between second person singular and second person plural verbs and pronouns. This distinction is not made in modern translations and is made in the KJV. For instance, in a modern translation, the pronoun, 'you,' is used for both a single individual, and a group of individuals. For instance, in Romans 2:4 (New American Standard Version), we read as follows: 'or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?' That is a second person singular in the original. In Romans 1:6 (same version), we read, 'among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.' In this instance, the 'you' is a second person plural in the original language. However, if you didn't notice, there is no distinction in the modern translation - the same word, 'you,' is used in both instances. In the KJV, however, a second person singular is almost always found as a 'Thou,' or a, 'thee,' and a second person plural is almost always found as a, 'Ye,' or a, 'you.' The importance of this rests in the fact that the KJV is making a distinction that is made in the original languages, while the modern translations almost wholly neglect it. In some cases, this can be rather important in our interpretation of a passage. As an example of a passage that demonstrates its importance is Philippians 1:6. Here are the four major translations of this verse: Phil 1:6 6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (KJV) Phil 1:6 6 {For I am} confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (NAS) Phil 1:6 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (NIV) Phil 1:6 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; (NKJ) Although all of these translations use the pronoun, 'you,' the KJV's use of this pronoun in this place indicates that the, 'you,' is plural. If it weren't, it would be translated as, 'thee.' The other translations, however, leave the passage ambiguous because they would use the word, 'you,' whether the original indicated a singular individual or group of individuals. Thus, some people who use modern translations will argue for the perseverance of the saints from this passage as though it conclusively proves their point, when, at best, it just shows that perseverance of the saints is a possibility. For, the verse actually is saying something to the affect of, 'God, who has begun a good work among (GR - 'en') the whole group of Philippians will bring it to perfection.' NOT, 'God, who has begun a good work in an individual will bring the work in that individual to perfection.' Now, I believe in the perseverance of the saints - but, knowing this, I wouldn't use this verse to defend it. This distinction is important in other places, too. Also, as a side note, you have probably noticed that some people in prayer address God with, 'Thee's,' and, 'Thou's.' Some people find this offensive, and complain that these people are, 'holier than thou,' types. Although I don't think it is necessarily a sin to pray with pronouns such as, 'you,' I think it is more appropriate to use the, 'Thee's,' and, 'Thou's,' because the men in Scripture always (so far as I have studied it) addressed God in the second person singular. If the English langauge can make this distinction - and it can - then I can't seem to find a reason why we shouldn't make that same distinction in our prayers. I'll stop here, though. John P.
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Tom
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:18:05 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
John I believe you bring up a good point about the thees and thous. However, I would be curious as to your responce to some of the accusations at the following site: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors Tom
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: John P
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 19:11:36 (PST)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings Tom, I wasn't intending on saying that the KJV is an infallible translation. Only the autographs are infallible. I do believe that the KJV is the only translation that should be used in corporate worship, but not because it is without error - it was the only translation that was authorized by what I recognize as a lawful General Assembly. I don't have time to discuss that, for the time being. All I was pointing out is the fact that the KJV is a translation which is far superior to modern translations, for many reasons - not the least of which is the, 'thee's and thou's.' I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear - I should have taken more time to state my position more fully. Love, John P.
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Brother Bret
To: Hail
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 21:13:13 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
A couple more thoughts? When the word of God was translated into other languages, whether English or otherwise, was it in the language that was common to the people at that time? When a preacher or Christian is preaching or teaching from the King James Version, don't they expound and proclaim it in the common language for our day? How often does what the preacher say end up matching the New King James or New American Standard versions? As Pilgrim also said, the KJV is my main version and what I use from the pulpit. But I also use the NKJV greatly, as well as other versions for comparable study. Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org
Subject: Re: You are ......
From: stan
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:22:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
trying to use logic and that is a subject many kjvonlyers never bother with ;-) or just don't understand. I think as you dig into the movement you will find that they are getting off base in a lot of other areas as well - really odd ball doctrine. I know - I know! Who am I to talk about other peoples odd doctrines ;-) http://www.bible.ca used to have a section on kjvonly - had a lot of questions for the kjv only folk for those that are interested. stan
Subject: Re: You are ......
From: Hail
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 19:09:01 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com

Message:
Stan and all, Bible.ca still has the KJV-only page. It is located at http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm. I just found it, and the plethora of information has helped me better understand and refute the KJV-only issue. Hail
Subject: Re: You are ......
From: Tom
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:19:28 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I found what that site had to say on the subject to be quite good. But on another issue that I found on the site, they believe in baptismal regeneration. They have a section on topics like this. Tom
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Pilgrim
To: Hail
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 21:47:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hail,
I have no desire to get into a long and detailed treatise on the errors espoused by the 'KJV only' advocates. But rather I'll just throw out a few comments which I think address the more salient points necessary. :-) 1. Is it really true that Moses spoke in Elizabethan English? 2. What of the Cloverdale, Geneva and Tyndale Bibles, which the KJV is based upon? How can one bifurcate these and other translations, including the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint which the KJV is inseparably bound? 3. No worthy scholar would nor ever has proposed that ANY translation (including the KJV) is 'infallible and inerrant'!! Only the original manuscripts are recognized as possessing these qualities. ALL translations, regardless of language, are inherently 'flawed'. Some more than others. The KJV, in my opinion, is an excellent translation, but so is the American Standard (orig. Revised Version), and the New King James. 4. The real debate actually is with the Textual Manuscript Evidence and not with the translations. 5. The translators of the KJV, although they have done an exemplary job, were not 'inspired' and thus there are places where their translation is wanting, as one consults and studies the Textus Receptus upon which it is based. Like anyone, they were bound by their limited knowledge of history and culture of biblical times. And thus their translation is not as accurate as it might be compared to the new 'light' we now possess due to archaeology and other sources of historical significance. Okay, that's enough... LOL! BTW, I use the KJV as my main English translation. So I'm not overly biased against it!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Hail
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 17:09:03 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com

Message:
Thank you for the information, Pilgrim! The argument of the person I am debating with is entirely based on the assumption that God used 70 scholars in 1607 to correctly translate Scripture. My question to this person was, 'How do you know this?' I find it interesting that the entire KJV-only argument is based on pure assumption. I think the KJV-onlyers need to use some common sense here. :-) Hail
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Pilgrim
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 09:15:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hail,
Yes, there is a whole lot of 'assumption' going on in that camp. Using their illogical premise, why isn't the Septuagint the only inspired translation? After all, there were '70 scholars' involved in that one too? :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Goodness ....
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:53:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
maybe you've got something there Pilgram, write us a book and we will be able to start a new movement!!!!!!! ;-) Seppey only lives!
Subject: Re: Goodness ....
From: Tom
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:08:43 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Stan Forgive me for my ignorance, but what was your point in your comment to Pilgrim? Tom
Subject: Re: Ever .....
From: stan
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:12:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hear of humor? Sorry, will try to refrain from further outbursts. shlep
Subject: Re: Ever .....
From: Tom
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:24:11 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Stan Yes I have heard of humor. I use it myself from time to time, lol. However, when I do, I do it for a purpose, I wasn't sure what your purpose was. Tom
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 16:05:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Having been around the block a time or two with a kjv onlyer or two I would suggest the following concerning your answers. I speak from experience with their followers, not the volumes of books on the subject - have not wasted my time reading those! 1. Irrelevant. 2. Irrelevant. 3. Irrelevant. 4. In some KVJonliers minds - in others Irrelevant. 5. Irrelevant. There are lots of shades of kjvonlyism of late - it is a doctrine that is in flux ;-) The kjv is the inspired book not the originals, though some might go back to the originals I don't think most do anymore. This covers number two - it doesn't matter what the kjv is based on it is the one that is inspired. No worthy scholar - in their eyes their mentors are worthy scholars ;-) but you are quite correct to point out the originals are the ones that were inspired and I would also agree on the 'no worthy scholar' point. Actually I've seen a few doctrinal statements quite lacking in this over the years - not mentioning in the original. In years past the Textus Receptus was held to be the correct side of things, but many of the kjvers now don't bother with it - it is the kjv that is inspired, no matter where it came from. I did see one the other day that mentioned that the kjv is the inspired version for the English speaking folk. This gets them out of the doghouse with the argument that the gospel can't be given to non English speaking people. Not sure what the fellow would have suggested that the inspired version would be for other languages. stan
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Prestor John
To: Hail
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 20:24:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well Hail, I'd like to point out that verse says not one jot or tittle will pass from the law. I don't see anything saying: 'the King James Version, plus by that reasoning if its not of the law then its subject to error. So what do we do with the Psalms, Proverbs, Galatians, etc . . .? That's not law, is it? Also where does it say how God will preserve His Word? Does it mean that God will never allow the substance of what His Word says to be changed or does it mean that there will always be one 'pure' translation no matter the language? See the passage doesn't even address those concerns does it? So in reality it can't really be used to prop up that sad old song about KJV being the one true version can it? Prestor John Armchair theologian, curmudgeon and esperantist Servabo Fidem!
Subject: Luke 2:14...which translation?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:21:59 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
NIV: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.' RSV/NASB: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!' NKJV/KJV: 'Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!' YLT: 'Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men -- good will.' There's a significant disparity between the NIV/RSV/NASB translations and the KJV/NKJV/YLT translations, since the former do not possess the universal greeting motif of the latter. Any thoughts as to why there is such a difference between them, and which is most likely to be accurate? Hoping everyone here had a holy, blessed, and joyful Christmas,BTW! Anne
Subject: Re: Luke 2:14...which translation?
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:03:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, Basically this difference is due not to the translators, but the manuscripts used by the translators; Nestle-Kurt Aland or Majority Text or the 'Received' Text; Textus Receptus. Pilgrim
Subject: Justification in Luther
From: Kenneth
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 15:00:50 (PST)
Email Address: vandahl@post10.tele.dk

Message:
I have just been reading a sermon by Luther on Gal 4:1-7 that seems to make justification a rather psycological occurence rather than a legal one. There is something very subjective to it, something like Christ sets us free to do good voluntarily, but it is not made clear whether this liberation is merely psycological or also and primarily forensic. Is there somewhere in Luther where it is clearly stated that justification is an objective occurrence? Or, that in justification the person as such is set free, not only this person's mind or will? Kenneth
Subject: Re: Justification in Luther
From: Pilgrim
To: Kenneth
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 17:26:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Kenneth,
There can be no doubt that Martin Luther was one of the greatest defenders of 'Sola Fide'; Justification by Faith Alone. His position was one which proclaimed an immediate and actual forensic justification at the moment a person believed on Christ Jesus. His 'by-word' is well known: simul iustus et peccatore translated: 'simultaneously justified and sinner'! I think you will find more than sufficient evidence that Luther held to a forensic justification in his two volume commentary on 'Galatians' [Luther's Works, vol. 26 and 27, American Edition]. Even many of his own hymns testify to this fact.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Christmas Message
From: Prestor John
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 16:57:13 (PST)
Email Address: pdnelson@icehouse.net

Message:
And with two days to spare I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Prestor John's Demesne Christmas Message for 2000 www.icehouse.net/pdnelson/index.htm
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: JOwen
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 08:50:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the sentiments, but our family and church does not take part in this roman holy day. Happy New Year. JOwen Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: Brother Bret
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 12:42:24 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
JOwen: I'll be the first one to admit, that I have struggled with aspects of the 'celebration' part of Christmas. But if I have my history correct, isn't this something that was started by Constantine in the 4th century before the Roman Catholic Church got rolling as an organzation and later became corrupt? Brother Bret
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: RJ
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:50:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the sentiments, but our family and church does not take part in this roman holy day. Happy New Year. JOwen Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
---
JOwen, This is a surprise!..Please explain why you do not celebrate? In His Grace, RJ
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: JOwen
To: RJ
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:55:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The 25th of December, Christmas, is rooted in pagan idol worship. "Many of the earth's inhabitants were sun worshipers because the course of their lives depended on its yearly round in the heavens, and feasts were held to aid its return from distant wanderings. In the south of Europe, in Egypt and Persia, the sun gods were worshipped with elaborate ceremonies at the season of the winter solstice, as a fitting time to pay tribute to the benign god of plenty, while in Rome the Saturnalia reigned for a week. In northern lands mid-December was a critical time, for the days became shorter and shorter and the sun was weak and far away. Thus these ancient peoples held feast at the same period that Christmas is now observed (Encyclopedia Britannica 1961 ed., 5:643). During the winter solstice period the Babylonians worshipped Tammuz;( Ibid., 5:642.) the Greeks and Romans worshipped Jupiter, Mithra, Saturn, Hercules, Bacchus, and Adonis; the Egyptians worshipped Osiris and Horus; the Scandinavians worshipped Odin (or Woden). "Among the German and Celtic tribes the winter solstice was considered an important point of the year, and they held their chief festival of Yul to commemorate the return of the burning wheel. The holly, the mistletoe, the Yul log, and the wassail bowl are relics of pre-Christian times."( Ibid., 5:642). The Apostolic church did not celebrate Christ mass, nor was it celebrated in the first few centries until A.D. 245, Origen (Hom. 8 on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ, "as if he were a king Pharaoh." The reason that Christmas became a church holy day has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible does not give the date of Christ's birth. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate Christmas. Christmas (as well as many other pagan practices) was adopted by the Roman church as a missionary strategy. It is interesting to see the motives behind the use of pagan festivles by the Roman Catholic Church. I believe they used it as a point of evangelism. Look at Pope Gregory I's instructions to missionaries, given in A.D. 601: "Because they [the pagans] were wont to sacrifice oxen to devils, some celebration should be given in exchange for this. . . they should celebrate a religious feast and worship God by their feasting, so that still keeping outward pleasures, they may more readily receive spiritual joys”( The United Church Observer, Santa's Family Tree, Dec. 1976, p. 14). This syncretism with paganism explains why Christmas customs are pagan to the core. The Christmas tree came into use because sacred trees were an important aspect of pagan worship during the winter solstice season. In Babylon, the evergreen tree represented Nimrod coming to life again in Tammuz who was supposedly born of a virgin, Semiramus. In Rome, they decorated fir trees with red berries to celebrate Saturnalia. The Scandinavians brought a sacred fir tree into their homes in honor of their god Odin. "When the pagans of Northern Europe became Christians, they made their sacred evergreen trees part of the Christian festival, and decorated the trees with gilded nuts, candles (a carry-over from sun worship), and apples to stand for the stars, moon, and sun” (World Book Encyclopedia, (1955 ed.), 3:1425.). The Roman Catholic Church hates the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Roman church uses human inventions, such as Christmas, to keep millions of people in darkness. The fact that millions of Bible-believing Protestants are observing a Roman Catholic holy day which has not been commanded anywhere in God's Word reveals the sad state of modern Evangelicalism. "We cannot conform, communicate, and symbolize with the idolatrous Papists, in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation." Our attitude should be that of the Protestant Reformer Bucer who said, "I would to God that every holy day whatsoever besides the Lord's day were abolished. That zeal which brought them first in, was without all warrant of the Word, and merely followed corrupt reason, forsooth to drive out the holy days of the pagans, as one nail drives out another. Those holy days have been so tainted with superstitions that I wonder we tremble not at their very names” (A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship, (n.p., 1633), p. 360.). My thoughts on this subject are plain. If you do celebrate the 25th of December, please do not bring Christ into it. He never asked you to bring his name into this Roman holy day. Have you presents, your turkey, family get together, and tree, but please don’t bring Jesus into your celebration, please. I know I will be labeled a legalist by many on this list…so be it. I am in good conscience and good company. Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Subject: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Prestor John
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 19:51:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know JOwen I don't mind that you don't celebrate the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Your loss, I've known a few of your ilk and they always appeared to be the happiest when cutting off their own nose to spite their face. See the point is this you could have look at my greeting and then said: 'Well another person going around with Merry Christmas on their lips bah humbug.' See you could have been like Scrooge keeping Christmas the way you do (or don't as the is case )and allowing us who have the pleasure of celebrating the holiday alone. However, you instead are of those that want to stop Christmas from coming at all. Now it maybe that your shoes are too tight or your head's not screwed on quite right, or that your heart is two sizes too small. Or perhaps, just perhaps its because you desperately want to out do your Puritan heroes. Now JOwen the Puritan's did a lot of good things I love reading the real John Owen's writings but the Puritans had the bad habit of tossing the baby out with the bath water. Your battle cry being: 'if Christ did not tell me to do it I won't!' The trouble is neither did Christ specifically command you to do what you are doing. Now let's take a look at your statement about December 25th being rooted in pagan idol worship. And your absolutely correct, but then what isn't? The days of the week, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc... are all based upon pagan gods. So are the months, so unless your calendar is based on the Jewish one (in which it would show you that Monday was the 28th of Kislev) by using that Gregorian device you are commingling with the pagans. Along with this I have to ask this: Why is it wrong to replace pagan festivals with Christian ones? When the early church fathers decided upon a liturgical year it was with the expressed purpose of showing God's sovereignty over time (hours, seasons, days) and to focus our thoughts upon Christ's life. As well as developing a reading schedule that would have the entire Bible read in a three year time during the services. The idea being to change the people's thoughts on how they viewed the days. And lastly in regards to your Christmas tree fetish. I give you a link by Pastor Richard P. Bucher The Origin and Meaning of the Christmas Tree A Lutheran Pastor who says it much better than I could. BTW did you know that Martin Luther celebrated Christmas? Some of his best sermons on grace were preached on that day. God bless us everyone!! Prestor John
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 18:41:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi all, The trouble with this kind of reasoning , is there nothing biblical in it. What ever happened to the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' where the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters of faith and practice. I have seen it so many times. First someone uses a scriptural principle then any rebutals to it come in the form of 'I feel' or ... did u know that ' Martin Luther or whoever did this or that ?'. Historical testimony is fine in its place...but give me a break... lets begin 1st by refering 'To the law and to the testimony:' (Isaiah 8:20). I could care less what this person or that person did in worship throughout history... For we are not to'follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2).When it comes to *God's worship* he will *tell us* what He wants. For He is the owner of such things. We'must worship Him in spirit and in truth'.(John 14:17) How could anyone think that God would be pleased with any worship that is based on lies. All across the world there are nativity scenes in the stable surrounded by animals with three wise men from the east bearing gifts. But Scripturally there: * is no inkeeper in the Bible, much less a kindly inkeeper who offered his stable for Joseph and Mary. * is never any indication the the Baby was in a stable * are no animals mentioned- anywhere. * are no wise men at the the birth of Christ ... they did not show up for almost 2 years after His birth ... and even then they visited them at a house. I'm sure we could find more lies ... but this should suffice to make my point. As far as celebrating the birth of Christ goes ... where does God ask for such a thing? If He actually desired such a thing ... would He not have given us warrant to do so? Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he *commanded them not.* Jeremiah 10:2 'Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen' Do you not think that if God wanted us to worship Him in this manner ... He would have supplied us with ... LOL... at least the correct day. Not some Romish makeover of a pagan holyday! Jeremiah 10:3-4 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. If any care what the Bible actually has to say on this matter. see : http://www.reformed.com/pub/xmas.htm Christmass www.reformed.com/pub/xmas.htm
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Chris
To: Marrowman
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:44:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Marrowman, Does the Bible also deal with Legalism, Touch not Taste not, Handle not. We are so concerned about our own Ideas and knowledge that we will miss the whole point of the Freedom we have in Christ and will end up in the Bondage of Mens own Standards or prefrences. But I for one wont serve Men though because of Love would rather be obedient to the Scriptures than to see one of my Brothers to offend and sin. Then i would have to give an account for it. We all again need to reflect on what is going on here. Now I do agree that there is alot of Verses in the Bible that deal with certain issues that we are dealing with, but why are we Judging one anothers motives and intentions and we dont even know each other. JOwen, Puritan, and Marrowman dont want to observe Christmas, that is fine and I admire you all for that, the rest of us dont have a problem with it, according to the Word of God, if they have such a problem with it then we should not Celebrate it at all as the world stands in their presence. And the same thing goes for anyone else within the local Churchs.(If it becomes an issue and cant be settled)
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:57:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris,
John Calvin was of the same mind when it came to the liberty which we have in Christ. And he was no Antinomian! :-) And he was imminently a man who knew and believed the Scriptures:
'The third part of this liberty is that we are not bound before God to any observance of external things which are in themselves indifferent, ('adiafora') but that we are now at full liberty either to use or omit them. The knowledge of this liberty is very necessary to us; where it is wanting our consciences will have no rest, there will be no end of superstition. In the present day many think us absurd in raising a question as to the free eating of flesh, the free use of dress and holidays, and similar frivolous trifles, as they think them; but they are of more importance than is commonly supposed. For when once the conscience is entangled in the net, it enters a long and inextricable labyrinth, from which it is afterwards most difficult to escape. When a man begins to doubt whether it is lawful for him to use linen for sheets, shirts, napkins, and handkerchiefs, he will not long be secure as to hemp, and will at last have doubts as to tow; for he will revolve in his mind whether he cannot sup without napkins, or dispense with handkerchiefs. Should he deem a daintier food unlawful, he will afterwards feel uneasy for using loafbread and common eatables, because he will think that his body might possibly be supported on a still meaner food. If he hesitates as to a more genial wine, he will scarcely drink the worst with a good conscience; at last he will not dare to touch water if more than usually sweet and pure. In fine, he will come to this, that he will deem it criminal to trample on a straw lying in his way. For it is no trivial dispute that is here commenced, the point in debate being, whether the use of this thing or that is in accordance with the divine will, which ought to take precedence of all our acts and counsels. Here some must by despair be hurried into an abyss, while others, despising God and casting off his fear, will not be able to make a way for themselves without ruin. When men are involved in such doubts whatever be the direction in which they turn, every thing they see must offend their conscience.' (BOOK III CHAPTER 19 SECTION 7)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: marrowman
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 21:49:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim wrote: Agreed ... but has was also no innovator of God's worship ethier. John Calvin was not condoning additions to God's worship as indifferent. Liberty in Christ is not liberty to sin.One of the aspects to having liberty in Christ is, no longer being bound by the types and shadows that point to Christ. Including those days that were appointed by God .... and were allowed for a brief transitional time (until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD). Here is a bit of what Calvin actually believed concerning men worshipping 'God according to their own fancies' '...which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.' '...God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, 'I have not commanded them,' whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words then are very important, when he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind; as though he had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.' --John Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah 7:31
Subject: Get a Job?
From: Pilgrim
To: marrowman
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
marrowman,
Again, you are erecting some strange strawman and falsely accusing us of 'false worship'. Perhaps you are visually impaired? and therefore have missed how many times your contentions have been clearly denied? Or perhaps more likely, you are so ingrained and blinded by your personal prejudices and allegiances to 16th century issues that you can't comprehend the truth of this matter?
1) We are not conducting 'worship services' on December 25th! 2) We are not 'worshipping' the Lord Christ in a Roman state church mass. 3) We are not 'worshipping' the Lord Christ through symbols, e.g., lights, trees, etc. 4) We are not involved in O.T. idolatrous practices which your irrelevant quoting of passages would imply.
If you are so intent on wiping out the idolatrous practices to which you are so concerned, then may I seriously suggest you direct your venomous accusations toward those who are truly guilty of these things? ie., the Roman Catholic Church, of whom YOU recognize as a legitimate church! Personally, I don't recognize the RCC as a church at all! :-) And therefore, whatever they do is idolatrous and blasphemous as far as I am concerned. And/or you can picket those Protestant assemblies who do hold corporate worship services and set up trees as idols, through which they believe they can reach God. I think if you would do this, you wouldn't have much to do?? The bottom line is that whatever I do on December 25th is MY business and not YOURS! My private and silent contemplations, meditations and prayers to God are just that: PRIVATE and are not subject to yours or anyone else's false accusations. Nor am I subject to your Pharisaical impositions of what you or anyone else thinks is allowed on December 25th in my home nor what I choose to do outside my home, e.g., feeding the poor, visiting the infirmed, etc.
In the Freedom of Christ my LORD, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Get a Job?
From: Marrowman
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 14:41:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If it is not a 'worship' day then what is it then? You say, 'whatever I do on December 25th is MY business and not YOURS!' This may be true sir but the issue is that a man was asked a question by RJ 'Please explain why you do not celebrate?'. A few of your 'ilk' postal on the man! Just for answering and explaining his convictions to someone who seem truly curious. I have found it quite common for those of your persuation to re-invent word definitions and facts to justify there unbiblical practices. So I would like to know your definition of 'worship' ? Websters dictionary uses these terms to define'worship': Worship- worthiness, honor, reverence, repute, or respect paid to a divine being, an act of expressing such reverence: to perform or take part in an act of worship. It can also mean an extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem. Hmmmmm.... so is it Christ or the day? You have not yet explained what this day is to you ... if it is not a worship day then, I ask again what is it? You are using this non-worship day defence to try and get out of have to defend you actions by scripture. So be it ... if not an act of worship then it is in vain ... it is mingling holy with unholy. ect Rudolph the Red Nosed Drunkard Rudolph the red nosed drunkard, had a very shiny nose and if you ever saw it, you'd say he's so drunk he glows! All of the pagan witches, used to go and do the same, Get drunk, indulge on Christmass, though it had another name! Then one Saturnalia eve, churches came to say, 'Woden, Yule, Tammuz you like? Just do it for Jesus Christ!' Then how the pagans loved them, and they shouted out hey wow! We'll keep our pagan worship, just offer it to Jesus now! Marrowman I would like to have a penny for everytime a Biblical principle has been defended in history and someone cries ' Pharisaical' or 'legalistic'
Subject: Re: Get a Job?
From: Marrowman
To: Marrowman
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 15:11:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as frivolous, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, 'Obedience is better than sacrifice.' 'In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,' 1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9. Every addition of His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere 'will worship' (ethelothreeskia) is vanity [Col. 2:23]. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate. John Calvin (Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 128-29.) Deuteronomy 12:1-4: These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. II Corinthians 6:16-18: And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Acts 5:29: Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. Luke 16:15: That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Deuteronomy 12:29-32: When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. I Corinthians 10:20: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Hebrews 11:6: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Romans 14:23: And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 10:2-3: For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Matthew 15:1-9: ... But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? ... ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:6-9: ... in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. I Peter 1:18: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers. Leviticus 10:1-3: And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. Deuteronomy 13: ... And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. (v.5) Deuteronomy 17:1-5: ... if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Colossians 2:18-23: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. I Samuel 15:22-23: And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. I Kings 12:32-13:5: And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.... Exodus 32:5-7: And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. Daniel 7:25: And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. II Thessalonians 2:3-10: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.... Revelation 13:11-12: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Jeremiah 10:2-5: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Subject: Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman
From: chris
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:18:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brethren, clearly by reading Pilgrims response this seems to have gone far enough. Out of Love and Respect I admonish you all to change the subject or stop insulting each other with what you are saying. This is not Christlike in any way shape or form. Please lets think of the interest of others in this matter and you all need to understand that we have no problem with Celebrating the Birth of Christ and you do. We shouldnt out of love do it around you nor talk about it in your presence if it is going to cause such contention. This is not a Fundemental of the faith and believe we are dealing with the Lack of Love, understanding and bordering Leagalism. Lets keep this in Prayer and remember each others feelings. Grace to you
Subject: Re: Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman
From: Tom
To: chris
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:15:26 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Chris Thank you for that responce. I truly believe that if one is convinced scripturally that celebrating Christ's birth is sin. Then for them, it is definately a sin, for it would be done not of faith. Though I believe we should all seek to find out the truth of scripture and act on it. In the end, we are the one's responcible for our actions, not anyone else. It is very important for all of us to seek the objective truth of scripture. For scripture is not subjective, it is objective. However, each and everyone of us is at a different point in our Christian developement. For that reason, when disagreances like this come along. We should pray for each other. Doing otherwise, may be a sign of pride, for even the party who is correct biblically. God, is in control and knows how to teach and lead His children. I will end this by saying. Each and everyone of us, nomatter what our possition on this issue is. Should ask themselves, is our position truly one that we believe out of conviction from God? Or is it a possition that we take because it is the majority view, or the easiest to believe? Let us all seek to do the will of God out of love for the Lord. Not just out of a sence of duty. Tom
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: JOwen
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 15:51:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
“…your head's not screwed on quite right, your heart is two sizes too small…a Pharisee, a viper, hardened, arrogance..” Your words sting. Prestor John, you do not know me, or my station in life, my theological background, my conscience before my God, or my relationship with my saviour. Your words are disrespectful to say the least. I can investigate a theological position with a person who disagrees with me, but how do I defend against words such as these? You leave me at a loss for words Prestor John. To attack the person and not the argument is vicious and un-Christ like. I will not correspond with you any further until you apologize for these remarks. JOwen (Sinner ravaged by the converting power of the Holy Spirit) Father of Five (so far). Assc.D, B.Sc./Religion Masters Candidate in Theology/History Student Minister Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland Vancouver, BC, Canada. (A little about myself).
Subject: On second thought...
From: Prestor John
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 09:34:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mr. JOwens: On reflection my Seussian retort towards you was too intense for what you were saying. After all, it isn't like I haven't heard the same sentiment before, however wrong it may be. I ask for your forgiveness for my attacking of your character instead of your position, I can only say that my blood was hot at the time and it's passion ruled me. And I regret that, and so hope that you will find in your own heart the means of forgive