The Roman army approached. They would soon attack Jerusalem. Jews gathered together, confident that their God would deliver them from their enemies as He had so many times before. A new sect, however, was confident in the exact opposite. They believed Jerusalem was about to be destroyed. Their leaders had been given a secret message by the sects' founder, warning them when to escape the doomed city!
Sounds like a good fiction, eh? But it's actually documented history. An amazing piece of history that many Christians are unaware of and/or uninterested in for various reasons.
On Tuesday evening of the passion week Jesus and His disciples were leaving the city for the night. One of the disciples told Him to look at the massive & magnificent temple. But Jesus didn't agree with that beautiful assessment. In fact, He shocked His followers by predicting its impending destruction. This elicited the obvious questions: When will this happen and what sign will precede it?
Jesus answered both questions. He assured them that all this would occur before their own generation passed away*. He predicted many signs that would occur before and after the destruction of the temple. And, most importantly, He told them to flee as soon as they saw the Roman army approaching.
Just less than a generation later Rome surrounded Jerusalem. Civil war at the capital caused their leader, Cestius Gallus, to turn back. The Jews of Jerusalem understood this as God's faithfulness. The new sect, however, heeded the warnings of their founder and understood it as a God-given opportunity to escape.
Eusebius tells us about that time (just prior to the war on Jerusalem for, indeed, the Roman's came back)
But before the war, the people of the Church of Jerusalem were bidden in an oracle given by revelation to men worthy of it to depart from the city and to dwell in a city of Perea called Pella. To it those who believed in Christ migrated from Jerusalem. Once the holy men had completely left the Jews and all Judea, the justice of God at last overtook them, since they had committed such transgressions against Christ and his apostles. Divine justice completely blotted out that impious generation from among men.
Amazing! At the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, God accomplished both judgment on physical Israel (those who rejected His Son) and salvation for spiritual Israel (those who accepted His Son). It is, in my opinion, a sad reality that this truth has been hijacked by the recent use of the entire Olivet Discourse as an 'end of the world' prophecy and by a general ignorance of the context in which the New Testament was written.
*Even CS Lewis, perhaps exposed to only the futuristic interpretation of such verses, called it the most embarrassing passage in Scripture for Christianity (Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p-385.)
Greatest Story Never Told
Greatest Story Never Told
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Hi Mattrose.
I understand that you're very confident that Jesus' Olivet discourse was only intended for that very generation. However, I'd like to suggest the following analogies to you.
Remember when the Israelites left Egypt? Those Israelites who refused to trust in God through Moses died while wandering in the desert, while the next generation survived to enter in to the Promised Land.
You've pointed out how Eusebius preserved a prophecy mentioning a warning to flee the destruction of a whole "impious generation"...but did you ever stop to consider that not all of the Jews were wiped out? Rather, they were scattered into different nations? What became of them and their descendants - the 'next generation'?
Now, it's true that a "believing remnant" survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and entered into the Promised Land, spiritually speaking. However, what about the unbelieving Jews who were scattered? Doesn't the bible make mention of them as well?
See, the difficulty I have with your line of reasoning - and with that of others who share your perspective - is that you neglect to consider 'the rest of the story.' Certainly, 70 AD can be considered as a fulfillment of Jesus' Olivet Discourse...but that's not the end of the story! We're still also dealing with a scattered, unbelieving remnant which is mentioned prophetically.
Jeremiah 30 is a good example of this. Here, we read of a time like no other, of "Jacob's trouble" - meaning the Great Tribulation, the time just prior to the return of Christ - and of God regathering a scattered, unbelieving remnant which has been scattered as a punishment for not believing in Him! (And notice, it's specifically "Jacob's Trouble" because Jacob is the name of unconverted Israel.)
To me, Jesus can very easily be speaking of both a fleeing of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as well as a fleeing of the destruction of Jerusalem just prior to His return. There's no conflict. And why? Because people still haven't learned the lesson yet, so history repeats itself.
Make sense?
Damon
I understand that you're very confident that Jesus' Olivet discourse was only intended for that very generation. However, I'd like to suggest the following analogies to you.
Remember when the Israelites left Egypt? Those Israelites who refused to trust in God through Moses died while wandering in the desert, while the next generation survived to enter in to the Promised Land.
You've pointed out how Eusebius preserved a prophecy mentioning a warning to flee the destruction of a whole "impious generation"...but did you ever stop to consider that not all of the Jews were wiped out? Rather, they were scattered into different nations? What became of them and their descendants - the 'next generation'?
Now, it's true that a "believing remnant" survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and entered into the Promised Land, spiritually speaking. However, what about the unbelieving Jews who were scattered? Doesn't the bible make mention of them as well?
See, the difficulty I have with your line of reasoning - and with that of others who share your perspective - is that you neglect to consider 'the rest of the story.' Certainly, 70 AD can be considered as a fulfillment of Jesus' Olivet Discourse...but that's not the end of the story! We're still also dealing with a scattered, unbelieving remnant which is mentioned prophetically.
Jeremiah 30 is a good example of this. Here, we read of a time like no other, of "Jacob's trouble" - meaning the Great Tribulation, the time just prior to the return of Christ - and of God regathering a scattered, unbelieving remnant which has been scattered as a punishment for not believing in Him! (And notice, it's specifically "Jacob's Trouble" because Jacob is the name of unconverted Israel.)
To me, Jesus can very easily be speaking of both a fleeing of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as well as a fleeing of the destruction of Jerusalem just prior to His return. There's no conflict. And why? Because people still haven't learned the lesson yet, so history repeats itself.
Make sense?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Damon,
It is impossible to say if and when any given prophecy might have two, three or a hundred apparent "fulfillments," but when there has been one complete fulfillment, there is no necessity of requiring another (without biblical warrant, that is). With reference to the Olivet Discourse, it seems to me that we have seen the fulfillment and there is no biblical warrant to look for another.
The question of whether the Bible speaks of the unbelieving Jews who were scattered (as opposed to those slaughtered) in AD 70 would seem to be no. I am aware of no prophecy about the nation or the race of the Jews that looks beyond that event, unless it is in statements like those found in Deuteronomy 28, where God threatens that, if they broke God's covenant (which they did), the curses of God would be on them "forever" (v.46), that they would be "oppressed and plundered continually" (v.29), and they would be "destroyed" (vv. 24, 48, 51, 61). Notably, Moses warned them:
"You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the Yahweh your God. And it shall be, that just as Yahweh rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so Yahweh will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you will be plucked from off the land which you go to possess...you shall never see it again." (vv.62, 63, 68)
It seems like the rosey hope of their restoration is more wishful thinking than biblical doctrine.
I know why you believe that Jeremiah 30:7 is about a future tribulation, but I can't see why you would expect others, who have no a priori commitment to futurism, to see it that way. The context speaks very plainly to me of the Babylonian exile as the "day of Jacob's trouble," and the phrase, "he shall be saved out of it," speaks of their return from that exile (cf. vv.1-2). This is the burden of most of Jeremiah's prophecies.
Of course, the prophet also foresees (as most of the prophets did) the time where those who had returned from Babylon (usually called the remnant) would also be "saved" in the ultimate sense that Christians use that term. This salvation comes when one embraces Christ as the Messiah ( "they shall serve Yahweh their God and David their king"--v.9). This progression of thought is very typical of the principal Old Testament oracles.
It is impossible to say if and when any given prophecy might have two, three or a hundred apparent "fulfillments," but when there has been one complete fulfillment, there is no necessity of requiring another (without biblical warrant, that is). With reference to the Olivet Discourse, it seems to me that we have seen the fulfillment and there is no biblical warrant to look for another.
The question of whether the Bible speaks of the unbelieving Jews who were scattered (as opposed to those slaughtered) in AD 70 would seem to be no. I am aware of no prophecy about the nation or the race of the Jews that looks beyond that event, unless it is in statements like those found in Deuteronomy 28, where God threatens that, if they broke God's covenant (which they did), the curses of God would be on them "forever" (v.46), that they would be "oppressed and plundered continually" (v.29), and they would be "destroyed" (vv. 24, 48, 51, 61). Notably, Moses warned them:
"You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the Yahweh your God. And it shall be, that just as Yahweh rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so Yahweh will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you will be plucked from off the land which you go to possess...you shall never see it again." (vv.62, 63, 68)
It seems like the rosey hope of their restoration is more wishful thinking than biblical doctrine.
I know why you believe that Jeremiah 30:7 is about a future tribulation, but I can't see why you would expect others, who have no a priori commitment to futurism, to see it that way. The context speaks very plainly to me of the Babylonian exile as the "day of Jacob's trouble," and the phrase, "he shall be saved out of it," speaks of their return from that exile (cf. vv.1-2). This is the burden of most of Jeremiah's prophecies.
Of course, the prophet also foresees (as most of the prophets did) the time where those who had returned from Babylon (usually called the remnant) would also be "saved" in the ultimate sense that Christians use that term. This salvation comes when one embraces Christ as the Messiah ( "they shall serve Yahweh their God and David their king"--v.9). This progression of thought is very typical of the principal Old Testament oracles.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve, I have no desire to argue with you over your oft-stated beliefs. It suffices to say that we differ on many, many things - especially on how we interpret Scripture.
However, I wish to point out that the reason that I claim that Jeremiah 30 ultimately points to the time just prior to the return of Jesus Christ is that it's a time of trouble "like no other." In other words, there never has been and never will be another time which will be more troubled than this one. One might set that statement in the context of the times in which they were living and come up with a reasonable - and accurate - interpretation. Understand that I do agree with that way of interpreting it! However, in comparing this passage with the beginning of Daniel 12 I find myself drawn to the inescapable conclusion that this also refers to the time just prior to Christ's return.
Anyway, I think we've both suitably stated our positions, so unless there's anything new to add to the discussion, by yourself or by anyone else, I see no reason to carry it further.
Damon
However, I wish to point out that the reason that I claim that Jeremiah 30 ultimately points to the time just prior to the return of Jesus Christ is that it's a time of trouble "like no other." In other words, there never has been and never will be another time which will be more troubled than this one. One might set that statement in the context of the times in which they were living and come up with a reasonable - and accurate - interpretation. Understand that I do agree with that way of interpreting it! However, in comparing this passage with the beginning of Daniel 12 I find myself drawn to the inescapable conclusion that this also refers to the time just prior to Christ's return.
Anyway, I think we've both suitably stated our positions, so unless there's anything new to add to the discussion, by yourself or by anyone else, I see no reason to carry it further.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I'm happy to hear you say that. I will take you at your word and will personally enjoy the respite.
It's just as well that you answer no more, since you never answer at all! When presented with biblical arguments, you never exegete a passage or present a biblical argument (an assertion is not the same thing as an argument), but you simply show impatience with those who point out from scripture that you are wrong.
I accept your assessment that you have no more to say about this, but I would prefer for you to refrain, when visiting my forum, from telling me when I must opt-out of further discussion. Since you have just made some new misinformed comments, and, unlike yourself, I habitually show you the courtesy of interacting with your statements, I must add a little more.
With reference to this most recent post of yours, I am surprised that a person who professes to know as much as you profess to know about the way the Jews thought and expressed themselves would himself be unfamiliar with one of their most common idioms--the hyperbole.
In saying that a particular thing was unlike any that had ever preceded it, and unlike any that would follow it, the scriptural writers were simply, by way of a literary exaggeration, emphasizing the extremity of the thing under discussion...not affirming that it was literally unique in history, as you have supposed. I will not merely assert this, but will give examples.
God promised to make Solomon famous, wealthy, and wise. His actual words are found in 2 Chron.1:12--
"I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like."
If this is literally true, then we must assume that no man living since Solomon's day has been as famous and wealthy as he was. However, there are today men whose names are household words on every continent, and there are corporate CEO's that command fortunes larger than Solomon's. Did God, then, lie to Solomon? No, He used a recognizable hyperbole.
In Joel 2:2, God describes a locust plague that hit Judah in the days of the prophet. He described the vast swarms of locusts in terms resembling a great invading army. He said, "a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations."
Notice that Joel says of this plague of locusts that "there has never been the like." And yet, much earlier, when God sent a plague of locusts upon Egypt, it was said of that plague, "they were very severe. Previously there had been no such locusts as they, nor shall there be such after them." (Exodus 10:14).
How could two separate plagues of locusts both be the worst that history would ever know? Again, it is the same hyperbole. This is very common in scripture. You should have been pointing this out to us!
It also says (as you have noted) of the "time of Jacob's trouble," that "there is none like it." I mentioned that this is the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and the time of the captivity, but you thought this identification to be impossible, because of the statement that it would be the worst ever.
In support of the identification of this phrase with 586 BC, you might be interested in what Ezekiel said about those very events: "And I will do in [Jerusalem] that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations." (Ezekiel 5:9). Thus, the very hyperbole that you say precludes application to 586 BC is found to be very unmistakably used of that very event, in Ezekiel 5:9, just as it is in Jermiah 30:7.
Interestingly, Jesus used the same hyperbole in speaking about the "great tribulation," which He said would come upon Jerusalem in His generation (Matt.24:21, 34). Though the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was very much like the destruction of the same city in 586 BC, yet, in speaking about it, Jesus said, "then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be."
The same idiom, as found in Daniel 12:1, in my opinion, is also referring to AD 70. Thus, both destructions of Jerusalem (586 BC and AD 70) were very much alike, but were both declared to be the very worst ever, unlike any other. If we did not understand the Jewish idiom, we would have to conclude that, in terms of historic events, they were both uniquely (not just exceptionally) bad.
Now I am prepared to heed your request and to discontinue this thread.
It's just as well that you answer no more, since you never answer at all! When presented with biblical arguments, you never exegete a passage or present a biblical argument (an assertion is not the same thing as an argument), but you simply show impatience with those who point out from scripture that you are wrong.
I accept your assessment that you have no more to say about this, but I would prefer for you to refrain, when visiting my forum, from telling me when I must opt-out of further discussion. Since you have just made some new misinformed comments, and, unlike yourself, I habitually show you the courtesy of interacting with your statements, I must add a little more.
With reference to this most recent post of yours, I am surprised that a person who professes to know as much as you profess to know about the way the Jews thought and expressed themselves would himself be unfamiliar with one of their most common idioms--the hyperbole.
In saying that a particular thing was unlike any that had ever preceded it, and unlike any that would follow it, the scriptural writers were simply, by way of a literary exaggeration, emphasizing the extremity of the thing under discussion...not affirming that it was literally unique in history, as you have supposed. I will not merely assert this, but will give examples.
God promised to make Solomon famous, wealthy, and wise. His actual words are found in 2 Chron.1:12--
"I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like."
If this is literally true, then we must assume that no man living since Solomon's day has been as famous and wealthy as he was. However, there are today men whose names are household words on every continent, and there are corporate CEO's that command fortunes larger than Solomon's. Did God, then, lie to Solomon? No, He used a recognizable hyperbole.
In Joel 2:2, God describes a locust plague that hit Judah in the days of the prophet. He described the vast swarms of locusts in terms resembling a great invading army. He said, "a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations."
Notice that Joel says of this plague of locusts that "there has never been the like." And yet, much earlier, when God sent a plague of locusts upon Egypt, it was said of that plague, "they were very severe. Previously there had been no such locusts as they, nor shall there be such after them." (Exodus 10:14).
How could two separate plagues of locusts both be the worst that history would ever know? Again, it is the same hyperbole. This is very common in scripture. You should have been pointing this out to us!
It also says (as you have noted) of the "time of Jacob's trouble," that "there is none like it." I mentioned that this is the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and the time of the captivity, but you thought this identification to be impossible, because of the statement that it would be the worst ever.
In support of the identification of this phrase with 586 BC, you might be interested in what Ezekiel said about those very events: "And I will do in [Jerusalem] that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations." (Ezekiel 5:9). Thus, the very hyperbole that you say precludes application to 586 BC is found to be very unmistakably used of that very event, in Ezekiel 5:9, just as it is in Jermiah 30:7.
Interestingly, Jesus used the same hyperbole in speaking about the "great tribulation," which He said would come upon Jerusalem in His generation (Matt.24:21, 34). Though the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was very much like the destruction of the same city in 586 BC, yet, in speaking about it, Jesus said, "then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be."
The same idiom, as found in Daniel 12:1, in my opinion, is also referring to AD 70. Thus, both destructions of Jerusalem (586 BC and AD 70) were very much alike, but were both declared to be the very worst ever, unlike any other. If we did not understand the Jewish idiom, we would have to conclude that, in terms of historic events, they were both uniquely (not just exceptionally) bad.
Now I am prepared to heed your request and to discontinue this thread.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve, do you enjoy giving me personally a hard time? Do you do this with anyone else on the forum?Steve wrote:I'm happy to hear you say that. I will take you at your word and will personally enjoy the respite.
You still don't get it. I DON'T LIKE ARGUING!!!! How loudly do I have to proclaim it before you listen!? I had to endure the painful and protracted divorce of my parents - including many long and bitter arguments over intellectual points of doctrine - because they couldn't see eye to eye. I don't like to go there because it's a painful reminder of what happened with my family. Are you going to hold that against me?Steve wrote:It's just as well that you answer no more, since you never answer at all! When presented with biblical arguments, you never exegete a passage or present a biblical argument (an assertion is not the same thing as an argument), but you simply show impatience with those who point out from scripture that you are wrong.
Secondly, I pointed out in brief why I disagreed, so that we could then put the matter to rest by just agreeing to disagree. I can see that you don't want to do that, though. You saw fit to trample on what I wrote to show just how right and intellectually honest you are, whereas I'm just ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and have a bad attitude to boot. So, I suppose I'll need to answer you anyway.
I can see that you're going to twist everything I say and interpret it in the worst possible light, too. Just so it's crystal clear, I'm not telling you what to do on your own forum. But after having gotten into one pointless argument already with you that never went anywhere (just like I said it wouldn't, remember!), I'm loathe to enter another. I'd prefer to avoid antagonizing you, but I seem to have done so anyway. So whatever I do, I can't win.Steve wrote:I accept your assessment that you have no more to say about this, but I would prefer for you to refrain, when visiting my forum, from telling me when I must opt-out of further discussion.
Steve, you weren't paying attention to what I said:Steve wrote:In saying that a particular thing was unlike any that had ever preceded it, and unlike any that would follow it, the scriptural writers were simply, by way of a literary exaggeration, emphasizing the extremity of the thing under discussion...not affirming that it was literally unique in history, as you have supposed.
I already allowed for this! Nevertheless, I think there's more to the picture than that.Damon wrote:One might set that statement [that it was to be a time of trouble like no other] in the context of the times in which they were living and come up with a reasonable - and accurate - interpretation.
But as I said above, I apparently can't say anything without antagonizing you - even when I agree with you!
I happen to believe that Solomon was literally that, by the way.Steve wrote:God promised to make Solomon famous, wealthy, and wise. ...
If this is literally true, then we must assume that no man living since Solomon's day has been as famous and wealthy as he was. However, there are today men whose names are household words on every continent, and there are corporate CEO's that command fortunes larger than Solomon's. Did God, then, lie to Solomon? No, He used a recognizable hyperbole.
Steve, we discussed this before. I asked you whether, even though you were applying Daniel 12:1 to 70 AD, could it not also apply to an end-time Great Tribulation because of the immediate reference to the resurrection? You answered that it could spiritually apply to Jesus' ministry, according to Luke 2:34. Now, I missed this statement of yours the first time around, but I'll address it here because I did address another facet of this point in this other thread.Steve wrote:The same idiom, as found in Daniel 12:1, in my opinion, is also referring to AD 70.
The time of trouble would connect with 70 AD, correct? But the spiritual resurrection would connect with Jesus' death and resurrection, and the subsequent Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given to the faithful, roughly 40 years earlier. Right? But since I see Daniel 12:2-3 as talking about the same event, not two events separated in time by 40 years, I don't see a spiritual resurrection as the ultimate fulfillment of this passage in Daniel 12. A type, yes, but not the final one.
Now, I had said that before and you never answered me back, as far as I can see. But now you're going back to your original position of positing a spiritual resurrection as the only fulfillment, as if we had never arrived at this point. Now remember, this is exactly what you had accused me of doing a month ago.
Now, I'm not about to attribute any intellectual dishonesty to you on account of this. I'm sure you simply forgot. Nevertheless, can you see how accusing me of intellectual dishonesty a month ago was unjustified, especially if you're seemingly doing the very same thing?? I mean, why do you think I replied the way I did when you continued to make the same accusations in my absence?
I sincerely hope you'll calm down after this, but this is the main reason I didn't want to continue a discussion with you. I can't be sure you won't get twisted about something I say, either taking it out of context or misinterpreting it, or alternatively getting angry that I didn't answer and debate you on every single point you've raised, and then ban me as a result.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Damon,
Please have the courage to defend your views--or else the honesty to retract them, if they are indefensible. If you think I have become angry with you, you must be using that term differently than I understand it. I am not aware of ever having become angry at any opponent in any debate. I have occasionally lost respect for an opponent, and used sarcasm (which might be mistaken for anger, but I am not sure why it would be), when the said opponent simply would not engage the arguments at all, and would simply repeat, as authoritative, certain unbiblical pronouncements and then expect thinking people simply to accept them.
It becomes especially annoying when an individual begins to whine and complain that anyone would be so unkind to him as to find fault with his opinion or arguments. Get a clue, my friend: this forum is not about your ego or mine. It's about truth. Your reactions to challenges of your position show that you cannot divorce your ego from your opinions, and when the latter are taken to task, you can't help but take it personally.
Based upon these reactions, I will indeed make a personal assessment of you: you don't belong in the thick of the kind of rigorous discussion that occurs on web forums. I'm thinking, perhaps, that writing plays or poetry might be a better use of your literary skills (which are considerable, by the way).
You say that you don't enjoy argument, and that it is unreasonable for me not to accommodate you with your "issues" (arising from your childhood experiences) in this regard. Might I suggest that my request that you present and answer "arguments" is not the same thing as "arguing" in the sense that anyone would find objectionable? Do you not know that, when discussing important differences of opinion, the consideration of sound "arguments" (i.e., evidence) is the only way that responsible, thinking people will be able to reach conclusions?
At one level, you are indeed presenting "arguments" in every post of yours. They simply aren't very good ones, and when someone challenges the validity of your arguments and you are placed in a position to defend your statements, you seem to cry "foul," and beg exemption from any responsibility either to retract your wrong statements or to defend them, appealing to your difficult childhood or your rare form of autism.
I will not hold it against you if you are autistic, or if you have not resolved your issues from living in an unpleasant childhood home, but I would strongly suggest that these handicaps define you as a poor candidate for much involvement in a web forum, where others will assess and critique your views. That is what such forums are about. Do you not encounter similar "peer review" at the other forums, which you have said you frequent?
You object to my wanting to perpetuate an argument with you, but you fail to consider that that is precisely my responsibility to do at this forum. Your objection simply translates into your insisting upon always having the "last word" on every subject, whether it is a good word or not.
The forum exists (as one can see by observing its main page) to provide an opportunity for people to ask me questions about the BIble. As you can see, I do not mind if you, or others, post answers to people's questions in disagreement with my own. I don't whine and beg you to stop disagreeing with me.
However, you often use this forum to simply post a position piece espousing a view that you apparently think to be very enlightened, and seem to expect no one to find fault with it biblically. At times, when your ideas are biblically critiqued, you insist that you are superior to others in sensitivity, or in discernment, and that we should all just accept this fact and leave your opinions alone [e.g., your post, dated May 22, at the following link: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=15 or the one, dated Jan.3, in the context of the whole thread: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=307]! Sorry. That won't work here. Those are not the rules of this particular forum.
The typical participant at this forum believes in biblical cross-examination of human opinions. If you do not believe in this, and are offended when it is your opinions that are cross-examined, there are certainly wiser ways for you to spend your time than to post here.
It has sometimes happened that another person has posted a question here addressed to me and you have jumped in with an immediate (and incorrect) answer. Then when I posted my own alternative answer (often without specifically referring to or criticiszing yours), you come at me as if I were starting a fight. A perfect example of this is at the following link: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=391
Or, you post an original post asking for anyone's response, and when I respond, you become angry and lash-out like a cornered animal! Want an example of this? Check out the following thread, noting how you started the thread, how I entered the discussion, and how offended you were with my innocuous (but disagreeing) reply: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=432
In this last post you continue to demonstrate your inability to dialogue with anyone holding a different view from your own. When I simply refute your position from scripture, you refer to what I am doing as "trampling" upon your arguments, and claim that I have shown you to be "just ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and have a bad attitude to boot." If these characteristics of yours have been revealed, it was not my doing. I have only refuted your positions. Your ego doesn't have to get involved at all.
You wrote: "after having gotten into one pointless argument already with you that never went anywhere (just like I said it wouldn't, remember!), I'm loathe to enter another...whatever I do, I can't win."
If you don't wish to argue with me, then don't post controversial positions that you know I will respond to. It is true that you "can't win"--but only because you do not use the scriptures responsibly, nor show much respect for their authority. This forum is not a contest to see which participant is brighter than another. It is a place to weigh ideas by scripture, and to embrace those that are found to be true.
What does "winning" mean to you, anyway? If, in the course of biblical discussion, the truth comes out plainly for all to see (even if my original position is the one that is proven wrong), then, in my opinion, everyone wins--everyone who loves the truth, that is. Those who just want to hold on to their own opinions, and who are offended at them being disproven, I suppose, are the only losers.
You wrote, of one of my responses to you, "Steve, you weren't paying attention to what I said." You are quite mistaken. I paid very close attention to what you said, reading and rereading it several times before endeavoring to answer you. If what you said is not actually what you meant, I am not sure why you would object to my not being able to read your mind. My response spoke directly to your position, as you presented it.
Apparently, it is actually you who are not paying attention to what I have said. You claim that, in our earlier discussion of Daniel 12:2, that I presented only a theory of a "spiritual resurrection" as my position. You even provided a link to that earlier discussion. However, if you would go to that link ( http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=1583#1583 ), and read my treatment of that passage, you will find that, contrary to your misrepresentation, I presented at least three or four alternative possibilities for understanding that verse, and said plainly that I am undecided as to which view is correct. Weren't you paying attention? If so, why did you so completely misrepresent my statements?
You say that I have accused you of intellectual dishonesty. I don't remember making this accusation, and you provided no example of my doing so. Are you sure it isn't just your conscience, not me, that is accusing you?
Please have the courage to defend your views--or else the honesty to retract them, if they are indefensible. If you think I have become angry with you, you must be using that term differently than I understand it. I am not aware of ever having become angry at any opponent in any debate. I have occasionally lost respect for an opponent, and used sarcasm (which might be mistaken for anger, but I am not sure why it would be), when the said opponent simply would not engage the arguments at all, and would simply repeat, as authoritative, certain unbiblical pronouncements and then expect thinking people simply to accept them.
It becomes especially annoying when an individual begins to whine and complain that anyone would be so unkind to him as to find fault with his opinion or arguments. Get a clue, my friend: this forum is not about your ego or mine. It's about truth. Your reactions to challenges of your position show that you cannot divorce your ego from your opinions, and when the latter are taken to task, you can't help but take it personally.
Based upon these reactions, I will indeed make a personal assessment of you: you don't belong in the thick of the kind of rigorous discussion that occurs on web forums. I'm thinking, perhaps, that writing plays or poetry might be a better use of your literary skills (which are considerable, by the way).
You say that you don't enjoy argument, and that it is unreasonable for me not to accommodate you with your "issues" (arising from your childhood experiences) in this regard. Might I suggest that my request that you present and answer "arguments" is not the same thing as "arguing" in the sense that anyone would find objectionable? Do you not know that, when discussing important differences of opinion, the consideration of sound "arguments" (i.e., evidence) is the only way that responsible, thinking people will be able to reach conclusions?
At one level, you are indeed presenting "arguments" in every post of yours. They simply aren't very good ones, and when someone challenges the validity of your arguments and you are placed in a position to defend your statements, you seem to cry "foul," and beg exemption from any responsibility either to retract your wrong statements or to defend them, appealing to your difficult childhood or your rare form of autism.
I will not hold it against you if you are autistic, or if you have not resolved your issues from living in an unpleasant childhood home, but I would strongly suggest that these handicaps define you as a poor candidate for much involvement in a web forum, where others will assess and critique your views. That is what such forums are about. Do you not encounter similar "peer review" at the other forums, which you have said you frequent?
You object to my wanting to perpetuate an argument with you, but you fail to consider that that is precisely my responsibility to do at this forum. Your objection simply translates into your insisting upon always having the "last word" on every subject, whether it is a good word or not.
The forum exists (as one can see by observing its main page) to provide an opportunity for people to ask me questions about the BIble. As you can see, I do not mind if you, or others, post answers to people's questions in disagreement with my own. I don't whine and beg you to stop disagreeing with me.
However, you often use this forum to simply post a position piece espousing a view that you apparently think to be very enlightened, and seem to expect no one to find fault with it biblically. At times, when your ideas are biblically critiqued, you insist that you are superior to others in sensitivity, or in discernment, and that we should all just accept this fact and leave your opinions alone [e.g., your post, dated May 22, at the following link: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=15 or the one, dated Jan.3, in the context of the whole thread: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=307]! Sorry. That won't work here. Those are not the rules of this particular forum.
The typical participant at this forum believes in biblical cross-examination of human opinions. If you do not believe in this, and are offended when it is your opinions that are cross-examined, there are certainly wiser ways for you to spend your time than to post here.
It has sometimes happened that another person has posted a question here addressed to me and you have jumped in with an immediate (and incorrect) answer. Then when I posted my own alternative answer (often without specifically referring to or criticiszing yours), you come at me as if I were starting a fight. A perfect example of this is at the following link: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=391
Or, you post an original post asking for anyone's response, and when I respond, you become angry and lash-out like a cornered animal! Want an example of this? Check out the following thread, noting how you started the thread, how I entered the discussion, and how offended you were with my innocuous (but disagreeing) reply: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=432
In this last post you continue to demonstrate your inability to dialogue with anyone holding a different view from your own. When I simply refute your position from scripture, you refer to what I am doing as "trampling" upon your arguments, and claim that I have shown you to be "just ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and have a bad attitude to boot." If these characteristics of yours have been revealed, it was not my doing. I have only refuted your positions. Your ego doesn't have to get involved at all.
You wrote: "after having gotten into one pointless argument already with you that never went anywhere (just like I said it wouldn't, remember!), I'm loathe to enter another...whatever I do, I can't win."
If you don't wish to argue with me, then don't post controversial positions that you know I will respond to. It is true that you "can't win"--but only because you do not use the scriptures responsibly, nor show much respect for their authority. This forum is not a contest to see which participant is brighter than another. It is a place to weigh ideas by scripture, and to embrace those that are found to be true.
What does "winning" mean to you, anyway? If, in the course of biblical discussion, the truth comes out plainly for all to see (even if my original position is the one that is proven wrong), then, in my opinion, everyone wins--everyone who loves the truth, that is. Those who just want to hold on to their own opinions, and who are offended at them being disproven, I suppose, are the only losers.
You wrote, of one of my responses to you, "Steve, you weren't paying attention to what I said." You are quite mistaken. I paid very close attention to what you said, reading and rereading it several times before endeavoring to answer you. If what you said is not actually what you meant, I am not sure why you would object to my not being able to read your mind. My response spoke directly to your position, as you presented it.
Apparently, it is actually you who are not paying attention to what I have said. You claim that, in our earlier discussion of Daniel 12:2, that I presented only a theory of a "spiritual resurrection" as my position. You even provided a link to that earlier discussion. However, if you would go to that link ( http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=1583#1583 ), and read my treatment of that passage, you will find that, contrary to your misrepresentation, I presented at least three or four alternative possibilities for understanding that verse, and said plainly that I am undecided as to which view is correct. Weren't you paying attention? If so, why did you so completely misrepresent my statements?
You say that I have accused you of intellectual dishonesty. I don't remember making this accusation, and you provided no example of my doing so. Are you sure it isn't just your conscience, not me, that is accusing you?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Some Partial-Pret guy
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:35 pm
Whoot, whoot!
This thread made an entertaining escape from coding web pages tonight!
This thread made an entertaining escape from coding web pages tonight!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
This is going nowhere productive because we're getting bogged down in character arguments. I looked through the post to try to weed out things that were unnecessary to respond to, but I didn't end up shortening it much. Hopefully, though, we can let the character stuff RIP soon because my intention is not to divide us, as we are both supposed to be members of the body of Christ.
Secondly, what you see as sniveling, I see as responding to verbally abusive behavior on your part. And if you expect me to want to dialogue with you, you'll need to stop these demeaning comments.
I hope you can look at this apology as evidence that we CAN work things out without getting testy with one another or resorting to extreme measures to resolve matters. Again, we're not supposed to be against one another as members of the body of Christ.
To wrap up, I hope this doesn't end up in a ping-pong session between the two of us of defending behavior that shouldn't be acceptable in the body of Christ to begin with. I'm not perfect and I'm willing to apologize where I fall short. However, I expect others to be willing to do the same.
In any case, the subject that we were supposed to be discussing was regarding whether or not the Olivet Discourse was to be interpreted as only connected with the events of 70 AD, or whether it had any future ramifications. In marshalling support for my own beliefs, I brought up the parallel between Jeremiah 30 and Daniel 12, pointing out that the Great Tribulation of Daniel 12:1 is in the context of a resurrection, and that this resurrection cannot only be understood in the context of Jesus' ministry. This is because Daniel 12:1 would then need to be understood in the context of 70 AD and there is a 40-odd year gap between these two events which didn't sit right with me. The latest point that I remember you making is that Daniel 12:2 could be interpreted spiritually and not physically, but I don't remember getting any further than that. If you'd like to add something new to the discussion, fine, but let's sort out and leave behind the character stuff as quickly as possible.
Damon
Steve, I cited scripture and verse to defend my views, as well as correlating two passages describing a time of tribulation and pointing out why, chronologically speaking, I didn't think that a near-term historical or a spiritual interpretation accounted for the full meaning of Jeremiah 30. You're certainly free to disagree with my interpretation, but why must you continually accuse me of not defending my views?? I hope we can agree not to make comments like that any more, because they're counterproductive.Steve wrote:Please stop snivelling and have the courage to defend your views--or else the honesty to retract them, if they are indefensible.
Secondly, what you see as sniveling, I see as responding to verbally abusive behavior on your part. And if you expect me to want to dialogue with you, you'll need to stop these demeaning comments.
Then if not from anger or frustration, why did you resort to the following:Steve wrote:If you think I have become angry with you, you must be using that term differently than I understand it.
As an aside, you didn't show me. You only asserted that I was wrong without sufficient proof.Steve wrote:It's just as well that you answer no more, since you never answer at all! When presented with biblical arguments, you never exegete a passage or present a biblical argument (an assertion is not the same thing as an argument), but you simply show impatience with those who point out from scripture that you are wrong.
First of all, if you thought that I was making a "misinformed comment," why did you respond in a provocative way instead of saying something like, "Damon, I'm not trying to argue with you but I believe that you're misinformed and that this avoids having to properly exegete the passages in question." Etc. Instead, your comment that I "never answer at all" is only going to serve to widen the divide between us rather than drawing us together as members of the body of Christ. I don't think that's what you want.Steve wrote:I accept your assessment that you have no more to say about this, but I would prefer for you to refrain, when visiting my forum, from telling me when I must opt-out of further discussion. Since you have just made some new misinformed comments, and, unlike yourself, I habitually show you the courtesy of interacting with your statements, I must add a little more.
Right. I enjoy reasoned, logical discussion where the parties involved aren't verbally sniping at one another or doing something else to offend one another. Once that starts happening, I bail out.Steve wrote:You say that you don't enjoy argument...
Steve, I didn't get that impression and none of the other contributors to that thread mentioned that my response was inappropriate or that I was "coming at you" in any way. If you felt this way at the time, then it would have helped if you had let me know in private, so that I could mellow out my further responses. Also, even though you felt that my advice was unbiblical and unjustifiable, again we have the same problem of making divisive comments. The way you were coming across was making it very difficult to respond to you without taking it personally.Steve wrote:It has sometimes happened that another person has posted a question here addressed to me and you have jumped in with an immediate (and incorrect) answer. Then when I posted my own alternative answer (often without specifically referring to or criticiszing yours), you come at me as if I were starting a fight. A perfect example of this is at the following link: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=391
If I remember correctly, I was upset about something that day. I apologize for taking it out on you, as I could have worded what I said a lot more diplomatically - just as I mentioned about how you worded things to me, above.Steve wrote:Or, you post an original post asking for anyone's response, and when I respond, you become angry and lash-out like a cornered animal! Want an example of this? Check out the following thread, noting how you started the thread, how I entered the discussion, and how offended you were with my innocuous (but disagreeing) reply: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=432
I hope you can look at this apology as evidence that we CAN work things out without getting testy with one another or resorting to extreme measures to resolve matters. Again, we're not supposed to be against one another as members of the body of Christ.
Ever stop to consider that that might have been because of what you said to another poster during the time that I was banned, in the "Damon" thread? (The thread looks like it's been deleted, though.)Steve wrote:In this last post you continue to demonstrate your inability to dialogue with anyone holding a different view than your own. When I refute your position from scripture, you refer to it as "trampling" upon your arguments, and claim that I have shown you to be "just ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and have a bad attitude to boot."
What I said was basically that I allowed for the passage in Jeremiah 30 to apply to that time in history. In other words, your long dissertation on how I missed the "hyperbole" in the passage was unnecessary - because I'd already agreed with you there!Steve wrote:You wrote, of one of my responses to you, "Steve, you weren't paying attention to what I said." You are quite mistaken.
Because I was trying to explain the gist of it without going into excruciating detail. If in doing so I misrepresented what you believed, then I apologize for that, but I didn't do so with any malicious intent.Steve wrote:Apparently, it is actually you who are not paying attention to what I have said. ...you will find that I presented [in the linked thread] at least three or four alternative possibilities for understanding that verse, and said I am undecided as to which is correct. Were you paying attention? If so, why did you so completely misrepresent my statements?
You did actually accuse me of that, in the "Damon" thread (which has apparently been deleted from the forum, albeit probably because of its personal nature and not with any malicious intent to hide anything on your part). What you had said to another poster was that I would often make certain claims, then ignore others' responses to those claims and go on as if they'd never said anything. The implication was that I was being intellectually dishonest.Steve wrote:You say that I have accused you of intellectual dishonesty. I don't remember making this accusation, and you provided no example of my doing so. Are you sure it isn't just your conscience, not me, that is accusing you?
To wrap up, I hope this doesn't end up in a ping-pong session between the two of us of defending behavior that shouldn't be acceptable in the body of Christ to begin with. I'm not perfect and I'm willing to apologize where I fall short. However, I expect others to be willing to do the same.
In any case, the subject that we were supposed to be discussing was regarding whether or not the Olivet Discourse was to be interpreted as only connected with the events of 70 AD, or whether it had any future ramifications. In marshalling support for my own beliefs, I brought up the parallel between Jeremiah 30 and Daniel 12, pointing out that the Great Tribulation of Daniel 12:1 is in the context of a resurrection, and that this resurrection cannot only be understood in the context of Jesus' ministry. This is because Daniel 12:1 would then need to be understood in the context of 70 AD and there is a 40-odd year gap between these two events which didn't sit right with me. The latest point that I remember you making is that Daniel 12:2 could be interpreted spiritually and not physically, but I don't remember getting any further than that. If you'd like to add something new to the discussion, fine, but let's sort out and leave behind the character stuff as quickly as possible.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Damon,
I apologize for any offense in my comments to you. I don't think you and I have anything like similar conceptions of what it means to exegete passages or present biblical arguments. This may not be your fault, and I have never held it against people when they don't have the ability to argue their points well. I do become impatient with those who set themselves up as correcters of the Body of Christ, but who complain when their positions are critiqued. This you have done often, as the example links in my last post demonstrate.
As for the discussion of Daniel 12, apparently you have not looked at that discussion before attempting to summarize its contents. I provided a link to it in my last post, but it seems I must make it easier still by quoting my relevant remarks from that location:
There is nothing in Daniel 12 that would place the expected fulfillment anywhere beyond the end of Jerusalem in AD 70, with the exception of the enigmatic statement in v.2, which seems to speak of the resurrection of the dead. If this is indeed talking about the resurrection of the dead, then the passage looks beyond AD 70 to the last day of the earth (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48).
If we take verse 2 to be the actual resurrection, then, I think, it would make the most sense to see the last two lines of verse 1 as spanning the period from the tribulation of AD 70 to the time of the second coming. That is, "at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book" speaks of the age of gathering the elect unto salvation--the church age. Those who are written in the book are identical to "the Christians" (Luke 10:20/Rev.3:3:5; 20:15).
Alternatively, the "many who sleep in the dust" who "arise" may not be those of the resurrection of the last day, since Jesus said that that resurrection would involve "all [not "many of those"] who are in the graves." Since Daniel seems to speak of only some coming forth, it might speak either of "resurrection" in some non-literal sense (as we find in Ezek.37:1ff/ Hos.6:2/ Eph.2:1-2), or else, if physical, to those who are said to have come out of their graves at the time of Christ's resurrection, in Matt.27:52-53.
I will not speculate as to which of these options is most reasonable. My point is that there is nothing in Daniel 11 or 12 that necessarily speaks of events beyond the first-century destruction of Jerusalem, other than the proclivity of many to take 12:2 of the future resurrection--an identification that is problematic (vis-a-vis John 5:28-29), and for which viable alternatives may be suggested. [ http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=1583#1583 ]
I am not sure why you did not notice what I said. Here is how you represented my comments:
"You answered that it could spiritually apply to Jesus' ministry, according to Luke 2:34."
We must be thinking of different threads, since I didn't mention Luke 2:34 here at all.
Damon, you have often implied that you see our exchanges as clashes of our egos. This may be what it is for you. However, I allow a great number of participants here to disagree with me, without my taking offense. Having observed your behavior here for many months now, it is my distinct opinion that you have a serious ego problem. I think you really want someone to think you are important. For you, the forum appears to be a means of putting yourself forward as an authority, perhaps in the only venue where you feel you can do so (does any group of Christians elsewhere view you as some kind of authority?). You don't wait to be asked for your opinion, but start your own threads with lengthy treatises presenting some controversial position--and often do not tolerate any cross examination without getting offended. When someone corners you with an argument from scripture, you frequently play the "poor me, I'm from an unhappy childhood home and I have a disability" card. It is simply juvenile. Sorry, but that is how it comes across to this observer. I will not watch you do this without taking you to task about it.
Though I host this forum, and am regarded by some as a responsible teacher, I don't even post opinion pieces here, unless someone first asks for my opinion. I simply give the best answer that I can when someone asks me a question. I am not even sure why people want to know my opinion, but I make myself available as a resource for those who do. I don't think of myself as an authority, and never have encouraged anyone to think of me as such. I consider the scriptures to be the authority. My clashes with you have been clashes between your claimed personal authority and the authority of the scriptures, and nothing more.
By the way, I removed the "Damon" thread because it was obsolete. It had begun with someone asking why you had been banned, and had a variety of responses. Since the ban was tentatively lifted, the matter was now moot. I was not embarassed by anything I said there.
I apologize for any offense in my comments to you. I don't think you and I have anything like similar conceptions of what it means to exegete passages or present biblical arguments. This may not be your fault, and I have never held it against people when they don't have the ability to argue their points well. I do become impatient with those who set themselves up as correcters of the Body of Christ, but who complain when their positions are critiqued. This you have done often, as the example links in my last post demonstrate.
As for the discussion of Daniel 12, apparently you have not looked at that discussion before attempting to summarize its contents. I provided a link to it in my last post, but it seems I must make it easier still by quoting my relevant remarks from that location:
There is nothing in Daniel 12 that would place the expected fulfillment anywhere beyond the end of Jerusalem in AD 70, with the exception of the enigmatic statement in v.2, which seems to speak of the resurrection of the dead. If this is indeed talking about the resurrection of the dead, then the passage looks beyond AD 70 to the last day of the earth (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48).
If we take verse 2 to be the actual resurrection, then, I think, it would make the most sense to see the last two lines of verse 1 as spanning the period from the tribulation of AD 70 to the time of the second coming. That is, "at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book" speaks of the age of gathering the elect unto salvation--the church age. Those who are written in the book are identical to "the Christians" (Luke 10:20/Rev.3:3:5; 20:15).
Alternatively, the "many who sleep in the dust" who "arise" may not be those of the resurrection of the last day, since Jesus said that that resurrection would involve "all [not "many of those"] who are in the graves." Since Daniel seems to speak of only some coming forth, it might speak either of "resurrection" in some non-literal sense (as we find in Ezek.37:1ff/ Hos.6:2/ Eph.2:1-2), or else, if physical, to those who are said to have come out of their graves at the time of Christ's resurrection, in Matt.27:52-53.
I will not speculate as to which of these options is most reasonable. My point is that there is nothing in Daniel 11 or 12 that necessarily speaks of events beyond the first-century destruction of Jerusalem, other than the proclivity of many to take 12:2 of the future resurrection--an identification that is problematic (vis-a-vis John 5:28-29), and for which viable alternatives may be suggested. [ http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=1583#1583 ]
I am not sure why you did not notice what I said. Here is how you represented my comments:
"You answered that it could spiritually apply to Jesus' ministry, according to Luke 2:34."
We must be thinking of different threads, since I didn't mention Luke 2:34 here at all.
Damon, you have often implied that you see our exchanges as clashes of our egos. This may be what it is for you. However, I allow a great number of participants here to disagree with me, without my taking offense. Having observed your behavior here for many months now, it is my distinct opinion that you have a serious ego problem. I think you really want someone to think you are important. For you, the forum appears to be a means of putting yourself forward as an authority, perhaps in the only venue where you feel you can do so (does any group of Christians elsewhere view you as some kind of authority?). You don't wait to be asked for your opinion, but start your own threads with lengthy treatises presenting some controversial position--and often do not tolerate any cross examination without getting offended. When someone corners you with an argument from scripture, you frequently play the "poor me, I'm from an unhappy childhood home and I have a disability" card. It is simply juvenile. Sorry, but that is how it comes across to this observer. I will not watch you do this without taking you to task about it.
Though I host this forum, and am regarded by some as a responsible teacher, I don't even post opinion pieces here, unless someone first asks for my opinion. I simply give the best answer that I can when someone asks me a question. I am not even sure why people want to know my opinion, but I make myself available as a resource for those who do. I don't think of myself as an authority, and never have encouraged anyone to think of me as such. I consider the scriptures to be the authority. My clashes with you have been clashes between your claimed personal authority and the authority of the scriptures, and nothing more.
By the way, I removed the "Damon" thread because it was obsolete. It had begun with someone asking why you had been banned, and had a variety of responses. Since the ban was tentatively lifted, the matter was now moot. I was not embarassed by anything I said there.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve