Commission on the Status of Women

Results of official meeting convened in 2000, with names of members.

Mississippi Census Profiles

Data from the U.S. Census, including a listing of local Census data centers and a breakdown of Congressional districts.

Mississippi Justice Court

Directory of courts, lawyers, and other legal services in Mississippi.

Mississippi Management and Reporting System

Central repository for statistics and financial information offering password-protected access to officials and researchers.

Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory

An independent state-supported division of Mississippi State University. The Laboratory was established by the state in 1892 for the primary purpose of providing chemical analyses for the control of fertilizer quality.

Mississippi.gov

Official state site offering links to government offices, educational institutions, tourism, birth and death certificates, driver licenses, healthcare and business development.

State Fire Academy of Mississippi

Providing instruction and support to fire departments throughout the State of Mississippi.

State Fire Marshal's Office

Mission statement, annual reports, and safety tips.

In article <168.34.08.05.607003000@srcbs.org>, larswilson says...
>
>
>
>
>"Bart Goddard" wrote in message
>news:167.06.14.05.141269000@srcbs.org...
>>
>>
>> wilsonl035@hawaii.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> In which case, your interpretation of this verse says that there
>> are two true gods, contrary to Scripture. There is only one God.
>> Anything called "deity" is being called God. You can't even
>> stay consistent in your own doctrine.
>>
>Ohh, please. We can *play on words out of context* all we want to.

YEs, that is what you have shown us -- with your own example.

> In one
>place the Bible says "there is just one god and one lord"

This is pretty well known...

> and in other
>places there are "many gods and many lords.'

but I have no idea what passage you are misreading to come up with THIS one.

> You don't take the limited or
>special meaning of words in one context then use then to create a false
>contradiction elsewhere.

You are almost right, Bart rarely does this. But you do it more drastically.

> Instead you leave them in context.

Which you do not do.

> I think the
>average person can understand what the point is when it focuses on "one god
>and one lord" in that specific context, and "many gods and many lords" in
>another.

But what weight can this claim of yours have, when YOU do not even understand
it?

>But, case in *my* point. When it gets down to a strict "True God" issue,
>then Christ is not the "True God".

This is not true. As it says in the Nicene Creed, He is "True God of True God".

> No. In this case he is the one "True
>Lord".

No, this does not work either. For the OT applies this term not [just] to the
Son of God, nor to the Son of Man but to God (Jer 10:10). So you either believe
the term applies to the Father (as well as to the Son), or you must believe in
the "unfolding of the Monad". Which course will you take? Or will you hide from
both?

>So your application of "true gods" from one context applied to John
>1:1 to create a contradiction is a no-go.

No, Bart was right. And you won't hear me say that often;)

>You are not recognizing the special use of "true" when this is referring to
>god as the only "True god" where *true* is being used in a special sense.

Your alleged "special sense" is nothing but a thin excuse for "special
pleading". That is why neither Bart nor I find it convincing.

>In one verse "true" in reference to one god being the tone "True God" is in
>a special qualification of the term "god" because "god" is used so loosely.