Discussion:
Recent dead in war
Tom Sathre
2004-11-14 23:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Jonathan,

So what is it, in this particular situation? I often find that being able
to state the opposite to the satisfaction of someone who holds that view,
makes me a better exponent of my own view.

Tom.

Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/8/2004 4:54:48 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Jonathan & laz,
You cite a commonly made claim - that this nation was founded on XYZ
values and morals - whatever XYZ may be, you choose. But I would ask you
what the opposite viewpoint is.
Tom, your statement appears nonsensical. For every given XYZ, there is
an opposite!
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
http://joshuacorps.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Tom Sathre
2004-11-15 00:16:50 UTC
Permalink
laz,

What sort of question(s) would you ask a candidate for office to figure out
whether s/he complies? Would you mind being specific?

Tom.

Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/7/2004 9:49:10 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Belief in (Yahweh) the Elohim of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and in Y'Shua
being the Messiah of the Elohim of Israel.
laz
laz,
The Denver "Post" claimed on 2/27/04 that a replacement for Judge
Moore's
hunk made of rock had been placed in the same building, across the
room.
The replacement is reported to be on a plastic plaque on the wall,
not a
2.5 ton hunt of rock. Altho' I've never seen the building, there's
lots to
be said for this removal to be a "cause celebre" of certain
Christians and
not much more.
More to the point: what religious test would you propose for someone
to
hold public office?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/1/2004 9:50:30 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian values and morals. So
in
essence the Constitution and other bills and writings were based
upon
this foundation. So in this sense a resounding YES.
Over the years the enemy has slipped in and perverted the church
vs.
state issue. The very Ten Commandments they are now trying to
outlaw in
government buildings and properties is the very building block of
all the
laws of this nation from its founding.
Now as for 'US religious and civic organizations', you are correct
as
regards secular vs. those who are of the body. But those of the
body
indeed NEED to fully be ONE in both areas within the body.
laz
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:11:59 -0700 "Tom Sathre"
laz,
This is Tom Sathre.
Section 6 of the US Constitution forbids setting up of
religious
tests for
political office - for example, "You must be a member of XYZ
religious
group to be President." The plain fact is that the members of XYZ
religious
group think that theirs is best. If they thought the group was
wrong
about
something important, they wouldn't stay. But I find that members
of
religious groups rarely are schooled in civics. Frequently the
schooling in
"civics" is from the leaders of XYZ.
Perhaps you and I are talking past each other. My guess of what
you
mean is
that the US religious and civic organizations cannot be
identical.
Is that
what you mean?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 10/24/2004 4:57:52 AM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
That IS worldwide, and fact.
The seperation is because they are two different systems. One
is
Elohim's, one is the worlds. THIS is not only in regards to
the
political
position taken by the so called seperation of church and
state
from the
governments legalese dept. But more. The two CANNOT be one.
Which
is not
even in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, BUT maybe is
'hinted at'
in the scriptures? But not in the way it is intepreted by the
government
and fringe groups with political agendas.
laz
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:51:26 -0600 "Tom Sathre"
laz,
This is Tom Sathre. Your opinion, given below, is separation
of
church and
state. This makes it an American opinion. Do you have a
world-wide
opinion?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 10/19/2004 4:43:06 PM
Subject: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
I can answer for myself if its ok Jon. Political opinion
is
nothing less
or more than carnal favoritism based upon carnal
understanding
and
belief's and desires.
shalom
laz
Excellent :)
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Tom Sathre
2004-11-15 00:49:36 UTC
Permalink
laz,

This is Tom Sathre. Don't I observe a "them/us" division in your note, on
the level of civics?

Tom.

Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/9/2004 3:43:48 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Well Tom, thats actually unanswerable by me. I cannot suggest other than
what I kow to be true by scripture to anyone, much less unbelievers. I
along will answer before Elohim about my choices and deeds I have
made/done while here where He has created me. Each will do the same one
day.
BUT, I DO encourage everyone in the same direction as I go in this.
shalom
laz
laz,
Sorry to be a one-note Johnny, but what test do you suggest, that's
applicable to people around us - other Americans?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/1/2004 9:50:35 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Again, I do not quite understand your question enough to answer
it. Do
you mean a 'person', an organization, a church or denomination of.
And also depends upon what you mean by religious. Whether 'PURE'
religion
spoken of in scriptures, or just religion as seen and interpreted
by man
and his ideals?
I CAN answer for myself though. In regards to my voting lets say,
I
decide based mostly upon scriptural direction. I suppose the one
(what
ever political persuasion) whom reflects scriptural moral backbone
the
most gets my vote. Admittedly this is also with regards to
spiritual
guidance by the Holy Spirit.
This 'scriptural' I speak of is not of personal interpretation
either.
Most things are black and white in scripture.
laz
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:16:57 -0700 "Tom Sathre"
Friends,
Does anyone have a religious test for political office?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 10/25/2004 1:21:16 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
First of all, 'no interpretation of scripture is
personal'....Kefa/Peter
wrote that.....
Second, if what I wrote made you think I believe the 'church'
is
not
carnal you have definitely mis-understood me. Most of the ones
who
call
themselves church are carnal just as the world is carnal.
There
are FEW
who are not and make up the true body. And even in this, not
saying that
they do not give in to carnality at all..even Paul and the
others
did.
Only Y'Shua walked fully.....
The real of the 'church' and state being separate is totally
other
than
anything carnal. The opinion given by judges and such of this
is
totally
carnal, AND is a total mis-understanding of the Constitution
and
the Bill
of Rights....
laz
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:10:12 -0600 "Tom Sathre"
Post by Tom Sathre
Jonathan,
This is Tom Sathre. The reason I see separation of church
and
state
Post by Tom Sathre
in
laz's opinion here is that it amounts to saying that
everything
Post by Tom Sathre
that's not
"church" is "carnal". This allows no room for disputable
matters,
Post by Tom Sathre
and this
allows no test to be constructed to decide a matter as far
as it
Post by Tom Sathre
being
"carnal" and "non-carnal". (If you propose a test, I can
always
Post by Tom Sathre
respond
that I read the Bible differently. As you get to know me,
you'll
Post by Tom Sathre
form your
own opinion about the likelihood that responses like this
from
me
Post by Tom Sathre
are
truthful. Some parts of the Bible are plain and some parts
are
hard
Post by Tom Sathre
to
understand. That's a non-testability built right in.)
That's the start of the reason that church and state were
separated.
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 10/23/2004 4:00:56 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Why, Tom, do you say that Laz's opinion cited below is
separation
Post by Tom Sathre
of
church and state? I see none of the terms "separation",
"church",
Post by Tom Sathre
or
"state" in his statement. I see only the Word of God.
laz,
This is Tom Sathre. Your opinion, given below, is
separation
of
Post by Tom Sathre
church
and
state. This makes it an American opinion. Do you have a
world-wide
opinion?
Tom.
I can answer for myself if its ok Jon. Political
opinion
is
Post by Tom Sathre
nothing
less or more than carnal favoritism based upon carnal
understanding
and belief's and desires.
shalom
laz
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Tom Sathre
2004-11-15 01:27:09 UTC
Permalink
laz,

This is Tom Sathre. The reason I used an unbound variable ("XYZ") in my
note is to avoid the irrelevance of getting it wrong. But, if you prefer me
to use a bound variable, just tell me what you prefer.

Mind if I ask again? What is the opposite viewpoint is? I mean, "opposite"
to the assertion that this nation was founded on XYZ principles. I think
you used "XYZ=Judeo-Christian" but I may be wrong. Didn't the Founding
occupy years and years, not a moment in time?

Tom.

Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/9/2004 3:43:11 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
As Jon said, the XYZ makes this thread hard to follow for me. But I
believe I get the jist of what you are asking. Must be the way my mind
thinks?
Before the 'founding fathers' wrote our constitution or anything else
there were many people who migrated here who believed in Y'Shua as
Messiah and obeyed the Torah of YHWH. They celebrated the appointed times
of YHWH (at least as required without there being a Temple), observed the
true Sabbath, and all this entails.
YEARS skipped here!**************
Later the 'founding fathers' wrote the 'foundational principals' of how
to live and how we would live in this nation as a believing pepole of
God. No matter that they had already either rejected, denied, or just
lost/forgot what the first ones were about. They laid hold of Jesus as
Christ and took their moral standard for the 'new government' from
scriptural instruction. Even though they did not take this all the way,
and mixed it with traditions of man.
We were not founded into a non-believing nation, or one which lived by
the standards of any other country.
Now on a more complicated part of this (complicated because it is only
just now being revealed in the last several years) is just WHO WE ARE.
And the answer to this is we are of the Northern Kingdom of Israel the
Lost Tribes. In fact there is most likely very few real gentiles left
after over 2700 years of assimilation with the nations while we are still
in dispersion among the nations for our punishment!
Understand we are not Judah/Jew, but Israel. And as with Israel some
Jews/of Judah are here with us, just as Judah is only in tribe of Israel
out of 12.
So you see it is geneticaly bound in and to us, no matter those who deny
it.
In essense I suppose you could say that the true foundation of this
nation is from the beginning. For YHWH proclaimed this before the
foundations of the world were laid in and by His Word.
Selah
laz
Jonathan & laz,
You cite a commonly made claim - that this nation was founded on XYZ
values
and morals - whatever XYZ may be, you choose. But I would ask you
what the
opposite viewpoint is. I've read many citations of words from the
Founding
Fathers about why they did what they did. But I know, about myself,
that a
quotation from me today might be different from a quotation from me
last
year. Didn't the Founding take longer than that?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/2/2004 4:06:03 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian values and morals.
I know that the U.S.A. was founded upon morals to be found in the
Old
Testament. Thus I do understand the the U.S.A. was founded upon
certain
Jewish morals. But I have never seen any of the commandments of
the
Lord Jesus Christ in law of the U.S.A. Can you name any?
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Tom Sathre
2004-11-15 01:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Jonathan,

This is Tom Sathre. I think your assertion was that this nation was founded
on Judeo-Christian morals and values. So, for you, "XYZ=Judeo-Chrisitan".

Correct me if I'm wrong. Sorry for confusing you.

Tom.

Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/9/2004 3:41:34 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Yes. Matter of fact there are MANY XYZ's for many of them.
laz
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:54:48 -0600 "Jonathan E. Brickman"
Jonathan & laz,
You cite a commonly made claim - that this nation was founded on
XYZ values and morals - whatever XYZ may be, you choose. But I would
ask you what the opposite viewpoint is.
Tom, your statement appears nonsensical. For every given XYZ, there
is
an opposite!
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Jonathan E. Brickman
2004-11-15 13:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sathre
Jonathan,
This is Tom Sathre. I think your assertion was that this nation was founded
on Judeo-Christian morals and values. So, for you, "XYZ=Judeo-Chrisitan".
Correct me if I'm wrong. Sorry for confusing you.
Tom.
No, Tom. And since you think the above of me, it is clear that a very
large amount of writing of mine on this topic has been entirely
disregarded. This is why I am reluctant to continue this thread, among
many other threads: unprofitable discussion.
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
http://joshuacorps.org



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
m***@juno.com
2004-11-15 11:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Well, yes! At least (if I understand what you are addressing here), as
goes those who are YHWH's and those who are not. And so it has always
been since the fall.

1) There are those who belong to Elohim.
2) There are those who CLAIM to be His but are not.
3) There are those who openly are not His, but of the adversary.
4) Of course there are those who just do not know, are ignorant...

selah
laz
Post by Tom Sathre
laz,
This is Tom Sathre. Don't I observe a "them/us" division in your
note, on
the level of civics?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/9/2004 3:43:48 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Well Tom, thats actually unanswerable by me. I cannot suggest
other than
what I kow to be true by scripture to anyone, much less
unbelievers. I
along will answer before Elohim about my choices and deeds I have
made/done while here where He has created me. Each will do the
same one
day.
BUT, I DO encourage everyone in the same direction as I go in
this.
shalom
laz
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:57:42 -0700 "Tom Sathre"
laz,
Sorry to be a one-note Johnny, but what test do you suggest,
that's
applicable to people around us - other Americans?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/1/2004 9:50:35 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Again, I do not quite understand your question enough to
answer
it. Do
you mean a 'person', an organization, a church or denomination
of.
And also depends upon what you mean by religious. Whether
'PURE'
religion
spoken of in scriptures, or just religion as seen and
interpreted
by man
and his ideals?
I CAN answer for myself though. In regards to my voting lets
say,
I
decide based mostly upon scriptural direction. I suppose the
one
(what
ever political persuasion) whom reflects scriptural moral
backbone
the
most gets my vote. Admittedly this is also with regards to
spiritual
guidance by the Holy Spirit.
This 'scriptural' I speak of is not of personal interpretation
either.
Most things are black and white in scripture.
laz
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:16:57 -0700 "Tom Sathre"
Friends,
Does anyone have a religious test for political office?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 10/25/2004 1:21:16 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
First of all, 'no interpretation of scripture is
personal'....Kefa/Peter
wrote that.....
Second, if what I wrote made you think I believe the
'church'
is
not
carnal you have definitely mis-understood me. Most of the
ones
who
call
themselves church are carnal just as the world is carnal.
There
are FEW
who are not and make up the true body. And even in this,
not
saying that
they do not give in to carnality at all..even Paul and the
others
did.
Only Y'Shua walked fully.....
The real of the 'church' and state being separate is
totally
other
than
anything carnal. The opinion given by judges and such of
this
is
totally
carnal, AND is a total mis-understanding of the
Constitution
and
the Bill
of Rights....
laz
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:10:12 -0600 "Tom Sathre"
Post by Tom Sathre
Jonathan,
This is Tom Sathre. The reason I see separation of
church
and
state
Post by Tom Sathre
in
laz's opinion here is that it amounts to saying that
everything
Post by Tom Sathre
that's not
"church" is "carnal". This allows no room for disputable
matters,
Post by Tom Sathre
and this
allows no test to be constructed to decide a matter as
far
as it
Post by Tom Sathre
being
"carnal" and "non-carnal". (If you propose a test, I can
always
Post by Tom Sathre
respond
that I read the Bible differently. As you get to know
me,
you'll
Post by Tom Sathre
form your
own opinion about the likelihood that responses like
this
from
me
Post by Tom Sathre
are
truthful. Some parts of the Bible are plain and some
parts
are
hard
Post by Tom Sathre
to
understand. That's a non-testability built right in.)
That's the start of the reason that church and state
were
Post by Tom Sathre
separated.
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
From: Jonathan E. Brickman
Date: 10/23/2004 4:00:56 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Why, Tom, do you say that Laz's opinion cited below is
separation
Post by Tom Sathre
of
church and state? I see none of the terms
"separation",
"church",
Post by Tom Sathre
or
"state" in his statement. I see only the Word of
God.
Post by Tom Sathre
laz,
This is Tom Sathre. Your opinion, given below, is
separation
of
Post by Tom Sathre
church
and
state. This makes it an American opinion. Do you have
a
Post by Tom Sathre
world-wide
opinion?
Tom.
I can answer for myself if its ok Jon. Political
opinion
is
Post by Tom Sathre
nothing
less or more than carnal favoritism based upon
carnal
Post by Tom Sathre
understanding
and belief's and desires.
shalom
laz
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
m***@juno.com
2004-11-15 12:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Yes, it took several years to finally get a 'written' constitution and
set all the things into law. Yet at first it was commonly just accepted
and lived.
With the influx of pilgrims crossing over came criminals and others
running from persecution. So we see there was more than one societal
structure rising up at one time.
But the majority, or maybe the authorative clung to Judeo/Christian
inclinations and ideals.
THIS eventually won out, but at a cost, as compromise entered in. But the
root was still the same.

All one has to do is look to where the majority of our laws were
influenced/came from. As well as to read the works of the founding
fathers of this nation. And yet history, before the founding fathers, is
more inclusive and reflective of this.

selah
laz
Post by Tom Sathre
laz,
This is Tom Sathre. The reason I used an unbound variable ("XYZ") in
my
note is to avoid the irrelevance of getting it wrong. But, if you
prefer me
to use a bound variable, just tell me what you prefer.
Mind if I ask again? What is the opposite viewpoint is? I mean,
"opposite"
to the assertion that this nation was founded on XYZ principles. I
think
you used "XYZ=Judeo-Christian" but I may be wrong. Didn't the
Founding
occupy years and years, not a moment in time?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/9/2004 3:43:11 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
As Jon said, the XYZ makes this thread hard to follow for me. But
I
believe I get the jist of what you are asking. Must be the way my
mind
thinks?
Before the 'founding fathers' wrote our constitution or anything
else
there were many people who migrated here who believed in Y'Shua
as
Messiah and obeyed the Torah of YHWH. They celebrated the
appointed times
of YHWH (at least as required without there being a Temple),
observed the
true Sabbath, and all this entails.
YEARS skipped here!**************
Later the 'founding fathers' wrote the 'foundational principals'
of how
to live and how we would live in this nation as a believing pepole
of
God. No matter that they had already either rejected, denied, or
just
lost/forgot what the first ones were about. They laid hold of
Jesus as
Christ and took their moral standard for the 'new government'
from
scriptural instruction. Even though they did not take this all the
way,
and mixed it with traditions of man.
We were not founded into a non-believing nation, or one which
lived by
the standards of any other country.
Now on a more complicated part of this (complicated because it is
only
just now being revealed in the last several years) is just WHO WE
ARE.
And the answer to this is we are of the Northern Kingdom of Israel
the
Lost Tribes. In fact there is most likely very few real gentiles
left
after over 2700 years of assimilation with the nations while we
are still
in dispersion among the nations for our punishment!
Understand we are not Judah/Jew, but Israel. And as with Israel
some
Jews/of Judah are here with us, just as Judah is only in tribe of
Israel
out of 12.
So you see it is geneticaly bound in and to us, no matter those
who deny
it.
In essense I suppose you could say that the true foundation of
this
nation is from the beginning. For YHWH proclaimed this before the
foundations of the world were laid in and by His Word.
Selah
laz
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 18:41:02 -0700 "Tom Sathre"
Jonathan & laz,
You cite a commonly made claim - that this nation was founded on
XYZ
values
and morals - whatever XYZ may be, you choose. But I would ask
you
what the
opposite viewpoint is. I've read many citations of words from
the
Founding
Fathers about why they did what they did. But I know, about
myself,
that a
quotation from me today might be different from a quotation from
me
last
year. Didn't the Founding take longer than that?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/2/2004 4:06:03 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian values and
morals.
I know that the U.S.A. was founded upon morals to be found in
the
Old
Testament. Thus I do understand the the U.S.A. was founded
upon
certain
Jewish morals. But I have never seen any of the commandments
of
the
Lord Jesus Christ in law of the U.S.A. Can you name any?
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
m***@juno.com
2004-11-15 11:42:57 UTC
Permalink
There are only 2 questions necessary.

1) Do you fear Yahweh Elohim?
2) Do you obey His commandments?

laz
Post by Tom Sathre
laz,
What sort of question(s) would you ask a candidate for office to
figure out
whether s/he complies? Would you mind being specific?
Tom.
Tom Sathre
(303)973-8035 (H)
(303)677-0735 (W)
[Original Message]
Date: 11/7/2004 9:49:10 PM
Subject: Re: { Questioners } Re: Recent dead in war
Belief in (Yahweh) the Elohim of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and in
Y'Shua
being the Messiah of the Elohim of Israel.
laz
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Jonathan E. Brickman
2004-11-15 13:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@juno.com
There are only 2 questions necessary.
1) Do you fear Yahweh Elohim?
2) Do you obey His commandments?
laz
But is it not true that a vast number of antichristian Jews answer both
of these with "Yes"?
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
http://joshuacorps.org


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
m***@juno.com
2004-11-15 16:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Yes, this is true, they do SAY so... But it is not so if they deny Y'Shua
as Messiah. Now, I would not say that 'anti-christian' is any indicator
of this either. I myself am against most of what the 'organized
institution of christianity' teaches. So I COULD be called
anti-christian, and in a sense they would be correct.

On the other hand, there are also many of the Jewish religion which DO
recognize Y'Shua as the Messiah. Many do so quietly to themselves or
immediate of those like minded, Many are also coming out and proclaiming
it outright as the Father draws them to the truth of the matter.
Just as Ephraim (the so called lost ten tribes) is being drawn by Ruach
HaQodesh towards rediscovering the ancient pathways, so in direct
proportion (it seems) is Judah being drawn to Messiah.

This was all prophesied and is now coming to fruition in His-story.
PROOF that we are in the latter days/end time/fulfillment of all
things...

selah
laz


On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:28:54 -0600 "Jonathan E. Brickman"
Post by Jonathan E. Brickman
Post by m***@juno.com
There are only 2 questions necessary.
1) Do you fear Yahweh Elohim?
2) Do you obey His commandments?
laz
But is it not true that a vast number of antichristian Jews answer
both
of these with "Yes"?
--
Jonathan E. Brickman
http://joshuacorps.org
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/feholB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Loading...