|
Post by prue on May 18, 2006 8:57:32 GMT -5
Hi from Prue. I am the author of the web site home.iprimus.com.au/pruephillip/I was contacted by someone to say my web site was being discussed on a bulletin board. I had never seen this board before. I asked someone a question on the board, out of curiosity, and in the name field suggested "mildly curious." Many people responded to that name, and it stuck. I have now registered as a member of this board.
|
|
|
Post by Just Curious on May 18, 2006 11:57:28 GMT -5
Prue: We respect you for your registraction. It shows you intend to be acsweet thingable/responsible for what you write, and we on this board like that in those who communicate here.
I wonder what else you haven't seen or are not aware of?
What books have you read concerning the 2x2s? What websites have you read? What Msg Boards have you viewed? Do you really know what motivates the ex-2x2s or VOTs? Have you taken time to really walk in their moccasins, so to speak?
Just Curious
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 18, 2006 13:32:23 GMT -5
prue,
As the present caretaker of the original VOT website (I am not its author, however), I can assure you that your site will be reviewed thoroughly by myself and a few others. If you believe half of what I'm reading about you (such as this thing about other Christians not being able to receive salvation), then you are in for a very long day, so to speak. We really don't have much regard for sectarian exclusivists.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on May 18, 2006 15:04:43 GMT -5
prue, As the present caretaker of the original VOT website (I am not its author, however), I can assure you that your site will be reviewed thoroughly by myself and a few others. If you believe half of what I'm reading about you (such as this thing about other Christians not being able to receive salvation), then you are in for a very long day, so to speak. We really don't have much regard for sectarian exclusivists. ditto!
|
|
|
Post by VOT on May 18, 2006 16:45:12 GMT -5
I just read the first few lines and the site is more than a joke. It is full of flaws.
For example it states: The acronym VOT stands for “Veterans of Truth.” VOT’s are apostates who are in the business of self justification.
Where did you get that from? Do you not know the meaning of Veterans of Truth?
Veterans of Truth means "Veterans of Truth". So tell me where did you read that Veterans of Truth are apostates who in the business of self justification or is it something you made up by twisting of the true meaning of the word truth.
Please write something that is credible so that your bitterness towards those that have left does not show so much.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 18, 2006 17:21:44 GMT -5
Here are some other groundless quotes from prue's site:
"VOT's repudiate the themes of the bible."
"VOT’s lessen their moral standards and develop cavalier attitudes towards scripture."
and the real kicker:
"VOT’s judge others. VOT’s don’t judge themselves."
|
|
|
Post by as i c it on May 18, 2006 18:03:03 GMT -5
ilylo has returned too! Great to see you're still here!
prue, prue, prue,
tsk, tsk, tsk,
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on May 18, 2006 18:08:20 GMT -5
Ok, Maybe Im a DUH head but mildlycurious is now Prue? Gee just when I got used to a name they went and changed it on me.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 18, 2006 18:34:48 GMT -5
I just read the first few lines and the site is more than a joke. It is full of flaws. For a site that does so well to slam the Catholic church, it is rather ironic that the heading contains an image of a painting from the Sistine Chapel, which belongs to none other than the Catholic church.
|
|
Prue aka MildlyCurious
Guest
|
Post by Prue aka MildlyCurious on May 18, 2006 19:31:16 GMT -5
Ilylo. I don't really slam the Catholic church. I have a great deal of respect for this most amazing of institutions. You are the second person to attack this image. I think I should remove it because we are not to have images of heavenly things. I put it here on the understanding that it represents Michelangelo's interpretation of the creation - and is iconic of old Christendom's view of things. But that doesn't excuse. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 18, 2006 19:42:48 GMT -5
I did not attack the image.
|
|
|
Post by Bridge on May 18, 2006 20:11:04 GMT -5
Interesting site. I like the references to the whole Christian Church. What a wonderful thought that people from many different traditions of worship will be saved because they believe in Christ. Also a wonderful thought that if people needed the bible to be saved(verse quoting) then I think He would have translated the bible much earlier. I often wonder why it took over 1500 years to get the bible into the hands of the people but then I am reminded that all they had to do to be saved is believe on Him. Thanks for your site as a reminder that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ(if we believe in Him).
|
|
|
Post by To Bridge on May 18, 2006 23:49:58 GMT -5
I like the references to the whole Christian Church. What a wonderful thought that people from many different traditions of worship will be saved because they believe in Christ.
I missed this part. I must have got hung up being called an "apostate".
|
|
|
Post by Brick on May 19, 2006 8:14:35 GMT -5
Also a wonderful thought that if people needed the bible to be saved(verse quoting) then I think He would have translated the bible much earlier. I often wonder why it took over 1500 years to get the bible into the hands of the people but then I am reminded that all they had to do to be saved is believe on Him. Could you expound on this a bit more? I don't really follow the "I can believe but don't need to know" line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 19, 2006 8:18:52 GMT -5
To JustCurious, you asked:
What books have you read concerning the 2x2s? What websites have you read? What Msg Boards have you viewed? Do you really know what motivates the ex-2x2s or VOTs? Have you taken time to really walk in their moccasins, so to speak?
I have read one book. I looked at a couple of websites but have never seen another board. I don't have a lot of time (notwithstanding what I did with my web site.) I do have a reasonable idea of what motives both camps in these debates.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on May 19, 2006 8:22:10 GMT -5
Also a wonderful thought that if people needed the bible to be saved(verse quoting) then I think He would have translated the bible much earlier. I often wonder why it took over 1500 years to get the bible into the hands of the people but then I am reminded that all they had to do to be saved is believe on Him. Could you expound on this a bit more? I don't really follow the "I can believe but don't need to know" line of thinking. I agree with what Bridge is saying. How is it that in the 20th and 21st centuries, we must religiously read this Bible publication and expound on our readings each week, just to have a chance at being saved?
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 19, 2006 8:27:04 GMT -5
To ilylo - you wrote about my "groundless quotes", such as
"VOT's repudiate the themes of the bible." I mentioned some of them. I stick by them. I will add more later.
"VOT’s lessen their moral standards and develop cavalier attitudes towards scripture." I see it even on this board. Mock, hate, scorn, lie, bad language etc.
"VOT’s judge others. VOT’s don’t judge themselves." Can you see honest self reflection on this board?
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 19, 2006 8:30:26 GMT -5
To Bridge. An apostate is anyone who rejects their own faith. Thus if you were in my church, and left it, you are an apostate. If you were a Catholic and became a Protestant you would be an apostate to the Catholic church.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 19, 2006 8:33:26 GMT -5
So it would be a good thing to apostasise from group think and place one's faith in Jesus alone?
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on May 19, 2006 8:34:20 GMT -5
Hi Prue-
I have some questions that I would ask you to answer so that I can more clearly understand your understanding of some foundational beliefs-
What covenant do you believe we are under in this age? What do you believe the condiditons of that covenant are? What/how is it guaranteed?
If you could point out scripture for question #1 that would be great-
Thanks
Karl
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 19, 2006 8:34:25 GMT -5
To ilylo - you wrote about my "groundless quotes", such as "VOT's repudiate the themes of the bible." I mentioned some of them. I stick by them. I will add more later. Add all you want. You've already demonstrated your willingness to judge people, rather than doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on May 19, 2006 8:35:17 GMT -5
Take heed to the apostates and profits.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 19, 2006 9:23:46 GMT -5
Hi Karl. You asked "What covenant do you believe we are under in this age?" That covenant is still the one given in the NT. The bible speaks of only two of them. We are told that the law will be with Judah "until Shiloh comes." A ref to the Messiah. Even in giving the Law Moses spoke of its eventual removal. We read that the second coming will not usher in another covenant. Some faiths and religions believe in a third covenant or even reversion to the old one. The OT ended with John as the last great prophet. It speaks of "fullfillment" of scripture. And He paid the price "once and for all." etc. (I do not have my bible with me...)
You wrote "What do you believe the conditions of that covenant are?" The conditions for that covenant don't change. All must shelter under His blood and follow Him in how he lived. We do not accept what churches say about an on-going revelation.
You asked "What/how is it guaranteed?" This is guaranteed by the word of God. The whole gospel is premised upon this.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 19, 2006 9:25:06 GMT -5
Hey Nathan, were you "Born in Viet Nam" ?
|
|
|
Post by Cherie on May 19, 2006 11:24:00 GMT -5
RE: The bible speaks of only two of them (covenants)
I was under the impression there were 7 covenants in the Bible. It's been awhile since I studied them. I just yesterday sent off my tapes on the covenants to someone.
How many are there, Karl?? Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by to Prue on May 19, 2006 11:24:54 GMT -5
Would you mind sharing whether you male or female??
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on May 19, 2006 11:55:07 GMT -5
You are correct Cherie, they can be broken down further, but there are Adamic Noahic Abrahamic Mosaic Davidic New
Here's a more comrehensive list from biblestudy.org...
Various Covenants in the Bible
1. God's covenant with Noah to save him and his family [ Genesis 6:18] 2. God's covenant with Noah and his descendants to never again destroy the world by flood. [ Genesis 9:9-17] 3. God's covenant with Abram to give him and his descendants the land we call Israel today and to destroy the inhabitants of that land because of their great sins. [ Genesis 15:18-21] 4. God's follow-up covenant with Abram, changing his name to Abraham, and designating him the father of many nations and millions of descendants, and adding the covenant of circumcision, and promising him Isaac as a son and the inheritor of the covenant [ Genesis chapter 17]. God made His covenant with Abraham unconditional. [ Genesis 22:12-18]
5. Laban's covenant with Jacob (Isaac's son and Abraham's grandson) concerning Laban's daughters (Jacob's wives). 6. God's conditional covenant with the children of Israel, requiring their keeping God's law and circumcision, in return for physical blessings. [ Exodus chapters 19 -24]. Further terms (conditions) of this covenant were expounded later. [ Leviticus chapters 25 - 27; Deuteronomy chapters 29 - 31] 7. God's covenant with the children of Israel concerning the Sabbath. [ Exodus 31:14-18] 8. God's covenant concerning the 10 commandments and holy days designated by God. [ Exodus 34:10 - 35] 9. God's covenant concerning the bread in the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, to be eaten only by the priests, descendants of Aaron. [ Leviticus 24:8,9] 10. God promised a "new" covenant. [ Jeremiah 31:31-34] 11. God spoke of His unconditional covenant with King David of Israel and of His continuing, unconditional covenant with Jacob's descendants. [ Jeremiah 33:19-36] 12. God spoke of "divorcing" Israel and Judah, thus ending the earlier covenant, and of establishing a new covenant with them. [ Ezekiel 16:59-63] 13. The most important covenant - the "new" covenant - established by Jesus upon His death. [ Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; II Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews chapters 7 - 10]. Paul described the only new ritual of the new covenant. [ I Corinthians 11:23-30]
Hope this helps
Karl
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on May 19, 2006 12:20:00 GMT -5
To my understanding Karl these covenants you speak of are covenants between God and specific people or groups of people. There are only two generic covenants and they are the covenant of the old testament through Moses and the new testament covenant through the blood of Christ.
[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|